1951-11-14

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read to the house a letter I have received from Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth. It is dated from St. John's, Newfoundland, the eleventh of November, 1951, and is as follows:
My dear Prime Minister:
Before leaving I want to tell you how grateful my husband and I are to you and to your colleagues for having given us so great an experience on this journey across Canada. The welcome we received on all sides has far exceeded anything we could have believed possible, and we have been given a picture of the rich variety of Canadian life which we shall never forget, and which has interested us profoundly.
It has given us infinite pleasure to have had the chance of meeting and talking to so many Canadians in every walk of life, and we have been happy to have had with us at various times on our journey your colleagues in the cabinet. Their advice has been invaluable, and we have much enjoyed getting to know them, particularly as they have given us an insight into Canadian affairs.
I hope that you will convey our thanks and appreciation to all members of the three services who have done so much to make our tour a success. We are very glad that you made it possible for us to travel in two ships of the Royal Canadian Navy, and in an aircraft of the Royal Canadian Air Force. We know also how much the army has done at all times for us. Our visits to navy, army and air force establishments impressed us greatly and we are proud to have been saluted by so many guards of honour of all three services throughout the length of our journey.
I am sure I need not tell you that this, our first visit to Canada, has made us wish to come back before too long to see more of the country and its people. I hope very much also that I will soon have the chance of meeting you again.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
RAILWAYS, CANALS AND [DOT] TELEGRAPH LINES
Second report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Coldwell be substituted for that of Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) on the special committee on radio broadcasting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for ihe Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: The purpose of the bill is to amend those provisions in the Bills of Exchange Act which prevent the chartered banks from closing on Saturdays. I should like to make it clear that this bill does not authorize the five-day week for banks. It merely removes those provisions which have up to now prevented the banks from operating on a five-day week.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Has an investigation taken place in respect to the cost of the St. Lawrence power and seaway?
2.	If so, what is the estimated cost of the whole
project?
3.	Has the estimated cost been broken down by object, that is, as between the power development and the seaway?
4.	What is the estimated cost to the government of Canada?
5.	Will the power phase of the project be financed by the government of Canada?
6.	In respect of the seaway, what are the estimated revenues and from what source, in relation to estimated operating and capital costs?
7.	What is the expected effect of the project (a) on industrial development, identifying the areas affected; (b) in the creation of new traffic: (c) on established routes for Canadian domestic traffic; (d) on Canadian import and export trade through Canadian Atlantic ports?
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I should like to make several revisions to this question I would ask permission to withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
i W f jTl- -L 10KAH1,

Questions



QUESTION AS TO QUANTITY HELD BY WHEAT BOARD

Mr. Harkness:: How many bushels of No. 5, No. 6 and feed grades of wheat were held by the wheat board at October 15, 1951, or the most recent date for which figures are available?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: I expect that in the near future a statement will be made giving figures as to the quantities of the various grades of wheat available as of the cut-off date for the last crop year, and the information being sought, or information very close to it, will be available at that time. It is not available as asked for at the moment. I would therefore ask that the question be dropped without prejudice to the hon. member's right to rephrase it and bring it back on the order
paper if the information is not fully available when the statement is made.


Mr. Graydon.:: In the hon. member's absence, perhaps I might suggest to the parliamentary assistant that rather than have it dropped it might be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



CARRY-OVER ON JULY 31, 1951

Mr. Ross (Souris):: 1.	What was Canada's total wheat carry-over on July 31, 1951?
2.	Of Canada's total wheat carry-over on July 31, 1951, how many bushels of each of the various grades were in store (a) at Fort William or Port Arthur; (b) at Churchill; (c) in country elevators;
(d) elsewhere?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Carry-over of Canadian wheat at July 31, 1951:
In visible positions	 Canada	
United States-..
Instore	 Unlicensed mills
In farmers' hands	
bus.
160,577,526
1,652,042
1,943,000
22,259,600
Total carry-over
186,432,168
2. Grades of Canadian wheat in store on July 31, 1951.
-	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	Ft. William Pt. Arthur	Churchill	Country Elevators	Eastern Elevators	Interior Terminals	United Statesbus.	bus.	* bus.	bus.	bus.	t bus.1 Hard	_	_	-	_	1 Northern	178,138	51,986	29,745	-	2 Northern	1,368,766	148,073	1,703,386	6	3 Northern	2,432,118	198,568	2,583,377	1,599	4 Northern	2,174,035	31,614	2,106,963	60,675	No. 5	4,804,524	1,585,387	3,439,355	3,733,343	No. 6	12,374,837	343,714	3,030,460	3,522,635	Feed	2,886,806	48,706	Data not	227,145	728,150	Data not1 C.W. garnet	-	-	available	-	-	available2 C.W. garnet	1,728	-	-	-	3 C.W. garnet	10,173	-	551	-	Tough contract	754,307	1,884	708	-	Others	2,582,803	35,933	235,977	1,929.048	Eastern	
.	-	-	751,157	-	1 C.W. amber durum....	4,019	-	-	-	2 C.W. amber durum	217,249	-	2,950	-	3 C.W. amber durum....	947,000	-	393,973	-	4 C.W. amber durum... .	597,066	-	498,268	-	Tough durum	250,376	-	-	-	Others	489,021	-	40,348	-	Total	32,072,966	2,445,865	76,358,023	15,044,363	9,975,456	1,652,042
* It is not possible to obtain the grade break-down of wheat stocks in country elevators at the close of the current crop year, July 31, 1951, at the present time. This information will not be compiled until some time after the first of the new year.
t It is not possible to supply grade particulars on 1,652,042 bushels of bonded wheat reported in store in United States visible positions at the close of the crop season.

Questions



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-INCOME TAX OFFICES  DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	How many (a) permanent; (b) temporary, employees of the income tax branch of the Department of National Revenue were discharged at each of the offices across Canada as a result of the staff rating program?
2.	How many employees did the local rating board in the Calgary office recommend for dismissal?
3.	What is the number and date of the order in council under the authority of which the permanent employees were dismissed?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	The following list shows the number of permanent and temporary employees of the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, released in each district office as a result of the staff rating program:
District Office	Permanent	Temporary
St. John's Nfld. ..		2
Charlottetown, P.E.I	.. 1	
Halifax, N.S	. . . 3	2Sydney, N.S	... 1	4Saint John, N.B. . .	. . . 6	2Quebec, P.Q	... 5	3Sherbrooke, P.Q. .	. . . 1	2Montreal, P.Q. ...	... 162	15Ottawa, Ont	. . . 10	1Kingston, Ont	... 3	2Belleville, Ont. ...	. . . 1	1Toronto, Ont	. . . 44	18Hamilton, Ont. ..	.. . 25	6London, Ont	. . . 16	2Fort William, Ont.	. .. 5	1Winnipeg, Man. ..	... 16	3Regina, Sask	.. . 3	2Saskatoon, Sask. ..	. . . 3	4Edmonton, Alta. ..	. . . 1	4Calgary, Alta	... 6	Vancouver, B.C. ..	. . . 5	9Head Office 	.. . 13	4Totals 	... 330	872.	The local rating board in the Calgary office recommended one employee for release.
3. The order in council which is the authority for the release of permanent employees as a result of the rating program is P.C. 63/5922, dated November 3, 1951.



DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, HAMILTON, ONT.   DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many permanent civil servants were released from the department of taxation at the Hamilton office during 1951?
2.	Why were they dismissed?
3.	Who dismissed them and upon whose recommendation?
4.	Were they given an opportunity to appeal? If not, why were appeals not allowed?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Twenty-five civil servants were released from the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, Hamilton office, in 1951.
2.	They were released because their qualifications and experience did not suit them for further employment under the revised procedures being followed in the taxation division.
3.	By authority of the minister, the employees referred to were released upon the recommendation of rating boards responsible for their rating.
4.	The formal appeal procedure of the civil service commission was not available to the individuals released since the responsibility for the release program rested with the Department of National Revenue, taxation division. Each employee, however, could have his case reviewed, at his request, by the deputy minister.



WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many vacancies are there at the present time in the advisory committee to the wheat board?
2.	Is consideration being given to the filling of these vacancies by appointment to such vacancies of bona fide farmers?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	There are no vacancies on the advisory committee at the present time.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



INSULIN


Mr. McCulloch:: 1.	Has the government any information as to the comparative prices of insulin in Canada and the United States?
2.	If so, what are such prices?
3.	Do any Canadian firms receive a subsidy from the federal government to assist in the production of insulin?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Yes. Comparative prices of insulin in Canada and the United States have been secured from the Connaught Laboratories, Toronto, the only manufacturer of insulin in Canada, and from the Eli Lilli Company, Indianapolis, the largest manufacturer of insulin in the United States.
2.
	Canada	United
40 unit insulin 	. . $ .83	States $1.4080 unit insulin 	. . 1.60	2.7540 unit protamine zinc insulin 	. . .96	1.6580 unit protamine zinc insulin 	.. 1.85	3.15
Questions
The prices of N.P.H. insulin, which is also now available, are:
Canada United
States
40 unit	
1.00	1.6580 unit	
1.90	3.153.	No.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: How many reserve squadrons of the Royal Canadian Air Force are equipped and active, in each of the following areas of Canada: (a) British Columbia; (b) the prairie provinces; (c) Ontario and Quebec; (d) the four Atlantic provinces?


Mr. Blanchette:: (a) Two; (b) four; (c) six;
(d)	nil.



WHEAT, BARLEY AND OATS    CLOSING AND TRANSFER OF FOOL ACCOUNTS

Mr. Argue:: 1.	On what date was the wheat, barley and oats
1950-	51 pool accounts closed out?
2.	What was the quantity and price per bushel, by grades of wheat, barley and oats transferred to the
1951-	52 pool accounts?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	Barley account closed out September 22, 1951; oats account closed out October 6, 1951; wheat account closed out October 20, 1951.
2.	Wheat-Not yet transferred pending completion of relevant accounting.
Oats-Grade
No. 2 Canada western	
No. 3 Canada western	
No. 4 Canada western mixed grain	
No. 1 feed	
No. 2 feed	
No. 3 feed	
Mixed feed oats	
Tough No. 2 Canada western	
Tough No. 3 Canada western	
Tough No. 4 Canada western mixed grain.
Tough No. 1 feed	
Tough No. 2 feed	
Tough No. 3 feed	
Tough Extra No. 1 feed	
Damp No. 3 Canada western	
Damp No. 1 feed	
Damp No. 2 feed	
Damp No. 3 feed	
Tough No. 2 feed heating	
Tough No. 3 feed heating	
Tough rejected mildew heated	
Rejected mixed heated	
Rejected mixed heated and heating	
Rejected musty	
Rejected mildew	
Rejected rotten kernels	
Tough rejected mixed heated	
Damp rejected mixed rotten kernels
heating	
Sample heated	
Sample No. 4 Canada western mixed grain
heated	
Sample musty	
Damp sample heated	
Sample heated and heating	
Sample rotten kernels	
Tough sample mildew rotten kernels . ...
Total	
Bushels	Price per Bushel	Value61,621-17	$ .88	$ 54,050.92324,950-19	.87	282,706.996,694-32	.71	4,753.41360,696-15	.83	299,378.051,120,638-31	.79	885,304.75397,974-22	.76	302,460.736,811-29	.67	4,563.94956-12	.86	822.46173,845-26	.85	147,768.9049-06	.69	33.93293,169-04	.81	237,466.9976,726-15	.77	59,079.3718,347-11	.74	13,577.0242,693-06	.85	36,289.20409-33	.82	336.1812,219-28	.78	9,531.463,599-25	.74	2,663.804,010-30	.71	2,847.731,725-00	.74	1,276.501,225-10	.71	869.96482-00	.66	318.1224,215-00	.73	17,676.952,240-15	.70	1,568.31257-00	.68	174.7635,697-31	.71	25,345.5227,134-24	.68	18,451.604,088-13	.71	2,902.75215-28	.60	129.4941,502-20	.70	29,051.81237-12	.66	156.65632-00	.66	417.122,148-25	.65	1,396.68788-00	.67	527.969,368-04	.63	5,901.91273-00	.58	158.343,057,447-33	$2,449,960.26

Questions
Barley-Grade
No. 1 Canada western two-row	
No. 3 mixed grain	
No. 2 Canada western yellow	
No. 3 Canada western yellow	
No. 3 Canada western six-row	
No. 1 teed	
No. 2 feed	
No. 3 feed	
Tough No. 3 mixed grain	
Tough No. 2 Canada western six-row ... Tough No. 3 Canada western six-row ... Tough No. 4 Canada western six-row ...
Tough No. 1 feed	
Tough No. 2 feed	
Tough No. 3 feed	
Damp No. 3 Canada western six-row ....
Damp No. 1 feed	
Damp No. 2 feed	
Damp No. 3 feed	
Tough No. 3 feed heating	
Tough sample ergot	
Rejected mixed earth and gravel	
Rejected mixed heated	
Rejected musty	
Rejected mildew	
Rejected rotten kernels	
Tough rejected No. 3 mixed grain heated..
Tough rejected mixed heated	
Tough rejected mixed flreburnt	
Damp rejected No. 3 mixed grain heated..
Damp rejected mixed heated	
Damp rejected mixed heated and heating.
Sample No. 3 mixed grain heated	
Sample mildew	
Sample smutty heated	
Sample smutty	
Damp sample heated	
Sample rotten kernels	
Sample mildew rotten kernels	
Bushels	Price per Bushel	Value1,790 00	$1.32J	$ 2,365.0417,662-46	1.094	19,274.70745-00	1.284	954.5826,156-13	1.284	33,512.721,166,544-11	1.284	1,494,634.844,077,403-41	1.244	5,061,077.531,255,926-34	1.23	1,544,789.851,112,134-25	1.134	1,259,492.355,169-12	1.064	5,485.87168-16	1.284	215.6815,814-28	1.244	19,629.853,278-31	1.204	3,938.47213,850-32	1.184	252,611.1089,142-28	1.154	102,625.40109,011-25	1.104	120,048.947,613-14	1.184	8,993.205,975-33	1.114	6,640.4817,451-32	1.084	18,869.617,508-14	1.034	7,742.937,187-08	1.074	7,699.25896-00	1.054	941.92941-00	1.104	1,036.2822,967-02	1.104	25,292.45742-00	1.084	802.297,658-12	1.104	8,433.656,440-42	1.074	6,899.79372-44	1.034	384.575,787-22	1.074	6,199.81551-39	1.054	580.09125-00	.964	120.169,558-14	1.004	9,570.2476-02	1.004	76.1457-04	1.044	59.4410,329-26	1.084	11,168.821,583-00	.924	1,458.343,866-38	.954	3,678.295,434-46	.984	5,333.053,688-40	.984	3,619.67631 -00	. 944	593.93
Total
8,222,243-06



$10,056,851.27 NOVA SCOTIA APPLE MARKETING

Mr. Anderson:: 1.	Is the Nova Scotia apple marketing board still functioning?
2.	If not, to what organization would any benefit to the apple growers of that province be paid?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	It is understood that the apple marketing activities of the Nova Scotia apple marketing board have been suspended but the exact legal status of the board is not known to the Department of Agriculture.
2.	Assistance is intended to be of direct benefit to the apple growers but exact method of making payment has not yet been determined.



RUSTICO HARBOUR, P.E.I.-REPAIRS TO BREAKWATER

Mr. McLure:: 1.	Has the contract for the repairs to the breakwater at Rustico harbour been completed?
2.	If not, can the work be completed during the winter season?
3.	Who are the contractors?
4.	What is the amount of the contract?
5.	Does the contract call for a time limit for completion of same?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	L. G. and M. H. Smith, Ltd.
4.	$19,483.50.
5.	Yes, December 29, 1951.

Questions



RADIO RECEIVING SETS

Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	How many radio receiving sets were there in Canada according to the 1941 dominion census?
2.	How many radio receiving sets were there in western Canada according to the 1946 prairie census.
3.	How many homes in Canada had radios according to the 1941 census?
4.	How many homes had radios according to the 1946 census in the sections of the country to which the prairie census applied?
5.	How many radio receiving sets were manufactured in Canada in each of the years since 1941?
6.	How many radio receiving sets have been sold in Canada in each of the years since 1941?
7.	How many radio receiving sets manufactured in Canada were exported in each of the years since 1941?
8.	How many radio receiving sets have been imported, by provinces, in each of the years since 1941?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. Information not available. The 1941 dominion census and the 1946 prairie census ascertained the number of occupied dwellings with radios but not the number of radios in each dwelling.
3.	Number of occupied dwellings in Canada with radios (1941 census)-2,002,889.
4.	The 1946 census of the prairie provinces collected information on the number of homes with radios only for urban centres of 5,000 population and over. These numbers are
shown below:
Manitoba
Brandon	 3,673
Flin Flon	 1,785
Portage la Prairie	 1,479
St. Boniface	 4,395
Transcona	 1,356
Winnipeg	 52,124
Saskatchewan
Moose Jaw	 5,819
Prince Albert	 2,879
Regina	 13,253
Saskatoon	 10,383
Swift Current	 1,531
Yorkton	 1,181
Alberta
Calgary	 25,884
Edmonton	 27,036
Lethbridge	 4,311
Medicine Hat	 3,046
In October 1949, a special survey of radios and household electrification was carried out by the dominion bureau of statistics in conjunction with its quarterly survey of the 
labour force. On the basis of this survey the estimated number of radios was as follows:
Estimated number of households with radios, by province.
Province	Number
Newfoundland	   54,000
Prince Edward Island	 17,000
Nova Scotia	 141,000
New Brunswick	 110,000
Quebec	 814,000
Ontario	 1,159,000
Manitoba	 180,000
Saskatchewan	 220,000
Alberta	 229,000
British Columbia	 323,000
Canada	 3,247,000
5.	Number of radio receiving sets manufactured in Canada.
Calendar Years	Number
1942		   177,149
1943		 979
1944		 Nil
1945	. 50,317
1946		 603,199
1947	. 984,276
1948		 639,493
1949		 791,051
1950		 820,772
6.	Information on retail sales not available. Domestic sales of radio receiving sets by
Canadian producers were as follows:
Calendar Years	Number
1942		 209,163
1943		 22,201
1944		 595
1945		 44,343
1946		 568,320
1947		:.. 836,419
1948		 596,467
1949		 728,680
1950		 788,242
7.	Exports of Canadian-made radio receiving sets.
Calendar Years	Number
1941	. 6,899
1942		 2,804
1943	.... 48
1944		 425
1945		 9
1946		 13,967
1947		 52,643
1948		 27,815
1949		 33,334
1950		 36,837
8.	See statement following.
8. Imports of radio receiving sets (except sets imported by returning tourists) through customs ports in each province of Canada during the calendar years 1941 to 1950
Province	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948	1949	1950No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.Newfoundland	_	-	-	-	-	43	101Nova Scotia	74	37	34	22	21	580	1,512	87	57	74Prince Edward Island	5	4	3	1	-	2	21	6	3	8110	48	131	86	53	390	538	85	59	19794	330	939	870	579	9,253	23,694	859	328	606750	540	2,234	444	233	10,025	31,799	017	1,237	1,71097	30	5	6	19	2,074	5,906	20	20	43Saskatchewan	21	0	3	9	10	52	337	28	21	27100	37	30	6	22	146	1,091	34	19	29British Columbia	113	73	129	50	03	484	3,070	148	91	148Yukon	6	6	1	-	12	17	5	2	4	1Totals	2,070	1,111	3,509	1,494	1,012	23,023	67,979	1,886	1,882	2,826
Imports of radio receiving sets by returning tourists, through customs ports in each province of Canada, during the calendar years 1941 to 1950
Province	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948	1949	1950No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No._	_	-	-	-	-	-	19	1520	18	2	-	1	6	55	15	42	801	-	-	-	-	-	-	3	-116	76	38	42	66	1,486	2,478	109	2,420	2,189631	623	292	196	320	7,684	16,481	281	15,449	12,870683	502	168	130	204	5,086	12,297	214	18,428	16,814 3,052 1,229164	107	15	13	31	1,051	3,022	43	3,442	33	26	3	8	13	333	1,073	43	1,226 1,647 9,315	36	19	6	7	8	280	951	20	1,655 6,211268	170	51	51	68	2,923	7,690	268	Yukon	-	-	-	~	3	3	-	3	91,952	1,541	575	447	711	18,852	44,050	993	51,994	44,124
Note.-Above figures include radio television receiving sets. Separate figures are not available.

Questions

Questions



HIGHLANDS NATIONAL PARK, N.S.

Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	What have been the total expenditures during 1951 on the Highlands national park in Nova Scotia for (a) maintenance; (b) construction and improvements; (c) equipment?
2.	Were tenders called for?
3.	If so, who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each?
4.	To whom were contracts let, and what was the amount of each contract?
5.	Was any work done by cost plus or fixed fee?
6.	If so, on what basis?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	(a) $102,352.40 between January 1 and
October 31, 1951; (b) $399,980.62 between January 1 and October 31,	1951;	(c)
$22,884.91 between January 1 and October 31, 1951.
2.	Tenders were called for: (a) gravel surfacing of sections of the Cabot trail highway between mile 38 and mile 65; (b) construction of a central service building for low rental bungalow cabins; (c) diesel power maintainer.
The remainder of the expenditures mentioned in the answer to question No. 1 was for work done by the park's staff. In connection with such work many small orders for material were placed by tender.
3.	(a) Fundy Construction Co., Ltd.,
$57,190.00; R. K. MacDonald Construction Co., Ltd., $84,710.00; Tidewater Construction Co., Ltd., $165,550.00; Municipal Spraying and Contracting Ltd., $169,850.00;	(b) Fundy
Construction Co., Ltd., $17,970.00; Messrs. Fraser, Chiasson and Merry, $13,900.00; (c) J. D. Adams, Limited, $14,697.00; Allis-Chalmers and Rumely Ltd., $14,800.20; Industrial Machinery Company, $15,884.00; Automotive Products Limited, $15,957.00; Louns-bury Company, Limited, $16,015.00; Dominion Road Machinery Company, $16,135.00; Charles Cusson Limited, $18,676.80.
4.	(a) Contract let to Fundy Construction Company, Limited, for gravel surfacing of
Canada	
Newfoundland ..
Maritimes	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan . ..
Alberta	
British Columbia
sections of Cabot trail, $57,190.00; (b) contract let to Messrs. Fraser, Chiasson and Merry for construction of central service building, $13,900.00; (c) contract let to J. D. Adams Limited for diesel power maintainer, $14,697.00.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



RADIO TELEVISION RECEIVING SETS

Mr. Brown (Essex West):: 1.	How many radio television receiving sets have been imported into Canada by years from and including 1945 to date?
2.	How many radio television receiving sets have been manufactured in Canada in each year from and including 1945 to date?
3.	How many radio television receiving sets have been exported from Canada from and including 1945 to date?
4.	How many radio television receiving sets have been sold each year, by provinces in Canada, since 1945?
5.	How many radio television receiving sets have been sold in Canada since 1945 by (a) federal constituencies; (b) by counties, districts or other provincial divisions?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Radio television receiving sets are not separately classified in Canadian trade statistics, therefore the information is not available.
2.	Number of radio television sets manufactured in Canada.
Calendar Years	Number
1945		 Nil
1946		 Nil
1947		  Nil
1948		 4
1949		 9,189
1950		 32,971
3.	See No. 1.
4.	Domestic sales of radio television receiving sets by Canadian" producers:
Calendar Years
1946	1947	1948 19491	1950-	-	- 4,163	29,622- 2	1-	-	- 2	108-	-	- 4,125	29,304-	-	- 1 - 33	1 208
1 September, October, November and 5. Information not available. December only.
FMr. Mcllraith.]



COLOMBO PLAN


Mr. Calherwood:: 1.	Have any agricultural products been shipped to India under the Colombo plan, during the current year to date?
2.	If so, what is the value of each of these products, and what amount in each case?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
Questions
continuity with the Newfoundland department of supply index, formerly published on that base, by multiplying each index on the new base by 185-4 (the June 1, 1951 index on the 1938 base). A detailed explanation of the Newfoundland cost of living index is given in dominion bureau of statistics reference paper, No. 28, entitled "St. John's, Newfoundland cost-of-living index (June 1951 = 100)".
3.	Answered by No. 1.



IMPORTS OF MILK SUGAR

Mr. Tustin:: 1.	What quantity of milk sugar was imported during (a) the year 1950; (b) to date in 1951?
2.	From what countries was this product imported, how much from each, and at what price (a) crude; (b) refined?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. Milk sugar is not separately classified in Canadian import statistics and the information is not available.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: 1.	How many veterans have been established in Queens county, Prince Edward Island, under the Veterans Land Act, since world war II, on (a) small holdings; (b) farms?
2.	How many in each of the above categories have defaulted in their payments?


Mr. Mutch:: 1.	(a) 129; (b) 253. In addition there are 34 commercial fishing establishments.
2.	(a) 3; (b) 14. Commercial fishermen-3. (The answer to part 2 relates to cases where, as a result of default, the properties have reverted to the director.)



COST OF LIVING-NEWFOUNDLAND INDEX IN RELATION TO GENERAL INDEX

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Do the figures relating to the cost of living index for Canada as a whole include a figure for the cost of living in Newfoundland?
2.	Is the cost of living index for Newfoundland based on 1935-39 as is the case for the rest oi Canada? If not, what is the base period for Newfoundland?
3.	If there is a different base period for Newfoundland, what method is employed by the bureau of statistics m incorporating changes in the Newfoundland cost of living into the general cost of living index for the whole of Canada?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	No.
2.	No. The base period for the St. John's, Newfoundland, cost of living index published by the dominion bureau of statistics is June 1, 1951. Indexes on this base may be converted to base of October 1938 to provide



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY    ROUTE THROUGH BRANDON, MAN.

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What route will the trans-Canada highway take through Brandon, Manitoba?
2.	Does this route involve the construction of a new bridge over the Assiniboine river?
3.	If so, how will the cost of such construction be distributed)?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	The province of Manitoba has not yet designated the route of the trans-Canada highway through the city of Brandon.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.



ARMED FORCES DEPENDENTS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Is supplemental assistance to families of members of the armed forces serving overseas available from the dependents board of trustees?
2.	If not, is emergency assistance provided from the benevolent funds of the respective armed services?
3.	With reference to the army benevolent fund, does it cover the emergency financial needs of the dependents of non-veteran members of the armed forces serving overseas?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	No. The dependents board of trustees was dissolved in 1946.
2 and 3. Yes, with the exception that the army benevolent fund only covers those who served in the second world war.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	How many contracts have been awarded by the Department of Defence Production in each of the maritime provinces, monthly, since January 1 1951, and what is the total value?
2.	How many defence contracts have been awarded in Ontario and Quebec, monthly, during the same period, and1 what is the total value?


George James McIlraith: For the reasons indicated on November 5 in answer to a question by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale), the information as asked for is not available! The information as to all contracts is published for each two-weeks period, and that is readily available.

Orders jor Returns


Mr. Brooks:: Do I understand the parliamentary assistant to say that this information which is published every two weeks is available.


George James McIlraith: The information as to
defence contracts awarded is available and published for each two-weeks period, but the break-down by provinces as asked for is not available. The explanation as to why that is so was given on November 5, 1951, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) and on March 12, 1951, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher).
The reason is that the indexing of the contract awards is done by the postal address given by the contractors. In many cases these postal addresses do not have relationship to the places where the work is to be done or the head office of the company or the factory, as the case may be. It therefore becomes meaningless when you attempt to group the contracts by provinces in that way. The index of contracts awarded does not take any account of subcontracts, and that of course is a very substantial part of the defence production effort.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I object to this question being dropped. It seems to me it is a far-fetched argument to say that the postal addresses where these contracts are let are available; they have the provinces. I think we should have it by provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Question No. 46 on the order paper, answered.



PULPWOOD


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How many cords of pulpwood have been exported from the province of New Brunswick for the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951 to date?


George James McIlraith: Year-Cords:
1946, 438,066; 1947, 489,409; 1948, 571,164; 1949, 418,090; 1950, 425,724; Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, 1951, 546,240.
Note: Above figures represent shipments cleared through customs ports in the province of New Brunswick. Province of origin is not recorded in trade statistics.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Are new industries to be established in Newfoundland? If so, what are they?
2.	What are the nationalities of the principals who are to establish the new industries?

3.	What is the estimated cost of establishing each of the new industries, and how is the cost to be financed?
4.	Has the government been requested by the government of Newfoundland to investigate the principals of these new industries as to their financial responsibility?
5.	Has the government been asked by the government of Newfoundland to investigate the economic feasibility of these proposed new industries?
6.	Has any assistance by way of loan or otherwise been requested by the government of Newfoundland in connection with the financing of these proposed new industries?
7.	If so, what requests have been made?


Mr. Rinfrei:: Return tabled.



CANADIAN ARMY-EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS AND COURSES

Mr. Churchill:: 1.	Are educational courses under army direction available to personnel in the active army (a) in Canada, including camps and hospitals; (b) overseas?
2.	What courses are offered?
3.	Are there educational officers or N.C.O.'s with each unit or formation in the Canadian active army?
4.	Are these officers or N.C.O.'s responsible in the first instance for education courses or are their duties in education secondary to other military duties?



FEDERAL HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many applications for grants for research purposes, under the federal health grants program, have been made by each province since January 1, 1950?
2.	How many of these applications, by provinces, have been (a) granted; (b) refused?



PURCHASES BY DEPARTMENTS OR CROWN COMPANIES FROM ST. LAWRENCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Has any department or crown company purchased property, buildings, machinery, and/or equipment from St. Lawrence Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, of the city of Quebec, since January 1, 1949?
2.	If so, what were such purchases, when were they made, by what department or crown company, and what were the terms of purchase in each case?



PURCHASES BY DEPARTMENTS OR CROWN COMPANIES FROM JOSEPH CAUCHON

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Has any department or crown company purchased property, buildings, and/or equipment from Joseph Cauchon, of the city of Quebec, since January 1, 1949?
2.	If so, what were such purchases, when were they made, by what department or crown company, and what were the terms of purchase in each case?



PURCHASES BY DEPARTMENTS OR CROWN COMPANIES FROM COLONEL GEORGES COUTURE

Mr. Courlemanche:: 1.	Has any department or crown company purchased property, buildings, machinery, and/or equipment from Colonel Georges Couture, of the city of Quebec, since January 1, 1949?
2.	If so, what were such purchases, when were they made, by what department or crown company, and what were the terms of purchase in each case?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For the complete file of correspondence respecting each and every person who, to the knowledge of any department of the government, has travelled to (a) U.S.S.R.; (b) Poland; (c) Hungary; (d) Czechoslovakia, since the first day of January, 1950, together with a copy of all correspondence which passed between each of the said persons and the department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, prior to the issue of passport to each of said persons.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, we feel we must urge reasons why this request should not be granted, so perhaps it had better stand until the hon. member in whose name it is inscribed on the order paper is present.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



STORAGE FACILITIES AT CHURCHILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wonder if he can answer it today.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Perhaps that question should have been addressed to me. It reads:
Has the minister recently received representations from the Saskatchewan wheat pools as to enlarging the storage facilities for grain at the port of Churchill? Does the government propose to take any action in that regard?
So far as the first part of the question is concerned, no representations have been received by me from the Saskatchewan wheat pools to the effect mentioned in the question. I understand the position is the same in so far as my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce is concerned. I saw the members of the national harbours board, and they indicated to me they had received no requests along the lines suggested by the hon. member's question.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



QUESTION AS TO RETENTION OF PENSION RIGHTS BY RETIRED EMPLOYEES APPLYING FOR OLD AGE SECURITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: On
November 1 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport concerning gratuities granted for retirement on account of ill health by the Canadian National Railways. The minister stated he had asked the officials of the Canadian National Railways to give attention to that point, and when he heard from them he would communicate the information to the house. Has that information been received?


Lionel Chevrier: No, but I expect to have it tomorrow, and I shall be glad to give it to the house.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Are the employees of the national employment service in Ontario protected by the Ontario Fair Employment Practices Act, as are other employees in that province? If not, will the minister explain why not?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I shall look into the question, Mr. Speaker, and give the hon. member a reply.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I did not give the Minister of National Health and Welfare notice of this question because the situation that I want to bring to his attention only came to my notice through a constituent of mine about an hour or so ago. Is it the minister's intention to avail himself of the census records in connection with proof of age for applications for universal pension? The reason I ask is that I understand the government has that in mind. I was hoping the minister would make some statement soon that that was going to be done, so the older people would be relieved of the anxiety they feel.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: As I indicated when

The Address-Mr. Hees the bill was before the house last week, it was not practical, nor was it legal, to use census records in the sense contemplated by my hon. friend's question. As I indicated, steps have been taken to make census records available in our regional offices, and we hope that can be done by December 1. That undoubtedly will facilitate much of the question of assessing the validity of claims as to age. It should be pointed out, however, that even the census records are not necessarily absolute proof of age. That should be clearly understood because already some indications along that line have been established. I may say finally in answer to my hon. friend that the matter of applications is proceeding smoothly and no undue difficulty is being experienced.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, November 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Quelch.
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members were glad to hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) announce in this house a few weeks ago that legislation would be brought down at this session to deal with veterans pensions. This decision of the government was brought about solely by pressure brought to bear on the government by members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: It is encouraging to us in the opposition to see-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Knowles:: They do not like the truth.


George Harris Hees: As I say, it is encouraging for those of us in the opposition to see that occasionally pressure of this kind can force the government to take needed action which otherwise it would not take.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the government is bringing down this legislation unwillingly; because if it had wanted to take action on veterans pensions at this session, this legislation would have been mentioned in the speech from the throne. Hence, as it is unwilling legislation, forced on the government by the pressure of the opposition, the


likelihood is that the government will try to get away with the minimum which it believes it can get away with. I should like to remind the minister that the cost of living has gone up by twenty-eight per cent since the pension was last increased. This means that the war veterans allowance and the pensions of war veterans, war veterans widows and the dependent mothers of those who were killed in battle will buy approximately one-third less today than could be bought three years ago. I therefore believe that these pensions must be increased immediately in order to compensate for this loss in purchasing power. If this government could increase the pensions of judges by twenty per cent last spring, it can increase adequately the pensions of those without whose sacrifice we would not be free today.
When dealing with the pensions of war veterans and their dependents, let the minister also bring in legislation which will allow those who receive the war veterans allowance, and who are also eligible to receive the old age pension, to continue to receive their war veterans allowance intact. To apply the means test to these pensioners is, I believe, both unjust and unfair.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs had a distinguished career during the last war as commanding officer of the Chaudiere regiment, both in Normandy and in northwest Europe. I want to take this opportunity of warning the minister that he will look back on D-day as an extremely quiet day compared to the battle he is going to have on his hands with members of the opposition if the government makes any attempt to short-change war veterans or their dependents when he brings in his legislation.
To strike a quieter note, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with a matter which, though not of the same degree of urgency as veterans pensions, is of great national importance. I refer to the need for the construction of the proposed dam known as the South Saskatchewan river project. I was glad to hear my leader-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: I will repeat, for the benefit of those who were not fortunate enough to hear me-


An hon. Member:: What about the boys in Toronto? Do they agree?


George Harris Hees: You bet they will.


Mr. Cruickshank:: That is one too many.


George Harris Hees: I was glad to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on Monday assure the government that they would receive the

The Address-Mr. McCusker
wholehearted support of the Progressive Conservative party on immediate action to proceed with this much needed project.
When I was in Saskatchewan last summer I became acquainted with the great need of bringing water to the area south of Saskatoon, what could be done, and the results that could be expected. I learned that for an outlay of $100 million a dam could be built which would transform 600,000 normally dry acres into a producer of crops the equal of any in the country. It is estimated that this development would triple the number of farm families who could live in this area, and bring their number to over 3,000. In addition, it would give Saskatchewan a source of hydroelectric power the equivalent of 435 million kilowatt hours per year, which is one and a half times the present needs of this province.
I believe that the way to give Saskatchewan industries which will make that province less dependent upon agriculture is to provide it with hydroelectric power in quantities which this project would provide. I became convinced at that time that this is the sort of project which should be proceeded with for the good of the country as a whole. I say that advisedly as a resident of Ontario, because I have learned that the prosperity of Ontario depends upon the prosperity of the rest of Canada. We in central Canada cannot be prosperous unless the west and the maritimes are prosperous as well.
This type of project can only be undertaken by government, and it is the sort of enterprise which government should undertake. I therefore urge upon this government that they get on with this development at the earliest possible moment. I feel sure that the expenditure which will be necessary for this particular development will receive the wholehearted approval of members of this house from all parts of Canada, and particularly from Ontario.
The Progressive Conservative party has already given its wholehearted approval to this project, as evidenced by the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) to this house on Monday last, and by the many speeches on this matter made in this house by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker).


George Alexander Cruickshank: He now agrees with family allowances, also.


George Harris Hees: The position of the Progressive Conservative party is that what is good for one part of the country is beneficial for the nation as a whole. I therefore hope that the government will see fit to place in the estimates, which they will bring before this
house next February, an adequate amount to ensure that this very advisable and necessary undertaking can be proceeded with immediately.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 say that any country which can produce a surplus of more than $100 million a month can maintain the standard of living of its disabled veterans and their dependents, and can develop its natural resources as well. I believe that any government that refuses to do this does not deserve to remain long the government of this country.


Mr. E. A. McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Had I spoken earlier in this throne address I should have reviewed the needs of my constituency and of the province of Saskatchewan; but as we are now in the sixth week of this session, many things which are of interest to my constituents have already been dealt with, for example, the old age security legislation, that splendid measure brought in by my minister, which will bring so much comfort to the aged people of this country. The veterans pension and allowance act has been dealt with and passed to a committee. The equalization of freight rates has been referred to a committee. Grain transportation and handling have been discussed, and also storage. The question of advances on grain to western farmers who, owing to adverse weather conditions and difficulties in storage, have been unable to harvest or deliver their grain has been fully discussed, and the government has announced that it has under consideration plans to meet this emergency.
Last night the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announced that he is proceeding west to have discussions with the wheat pool and with other interested parties, and I am sure that much good will come from these conferences. It is the desire of all of us who are interested in western crops to see that the system adopted to make these advances is equitable and does not lead to confusion.
The Minister of Agriculture also spoke of the South Saskatchewan river project. I will not take the time to discuss it today; I discussed it fully in the house last year, and I am glad to see that the recommendations I made then have been adopted, and a commission is now studying the project. As the minister assured us last night, action will soon be taken.
Price controls is a question in which many in my constituency are deeply interested, and on which there are among the public widely divergent opinions. I hope the committee appointed to deal with this will be able to bring in an acceptable solution.
1014	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. McCusker
Having briefly referred to matters of interest to my constituents, I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to a matter of interest to all parts of Canada. I refer to civil defence. Since I became parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) my interest as a medical man naturally has been primarily in the health aspects of this department's important and varied work. However, as one who has played some part in military activity during the two wars, especially on the medical side, I am also intensely interested in what is being done in the department in the field of civil defence. Since I have followed new developments in this field closely from day to day I thought it might be of interest to this house to report in some detail the progress being made in Canada's civil defence preparations because the responsibility in this field was transferred in February to the Department of National Health and Welfare. The primary purpose of civil defence is to reduce the effects of enemy attack upon the lives of our people and their property. But there is also an important although a secondary purpose, and that is to improve our facilities and organization to deal with certain day-to-day hazards to our communities such as fire, and for major disasters such as those caused by fires, windstorms, or floods. Much of the training given for civil defence, much of the equipment purchased and many of these facilities established can serve useful stand-by purposes in peacetime disasters if, as we hope and trust, our communities are never subjected to enemy attack.
Preparations for civil defence embrace many fields of action: health and welfare services, advance warning, communications, fire fighting, public information, liaison with the armed forces and so on. Before considering any of these aspects of the problem in any detail perhaps it would be best if I described briefly to the house the way in which civil defence facilities in Canada are organized. As every hon. member knows, civil defence is a complex of overlapping responsibilities involving the participation of federal, provincial and municipal government authorities. Let me briefly indicate the organizational structure on each level. First, the civil defence organization of the federal government:
1.	The cabinet and cabinet defence committee: Matters of major policy respecting federal responsibilities in the civil defence field are decided by cabinet and the cabinet defence committee, subject always to the control of this parliament.
2.	The Minister of National Health and Welfare: The Minister of National Health and


Welfare has immediate and direct responsibility for all civil defence matters and reports to this house, as he did in May, on all questions of policy or administration. Both the cabinet and the minister are continually advised by the chiefs of staff committee on questions of defence policy as it relates to civil defence planning.
3.	The co-ordinator of civil defence: The co-ordinator of civil defence, Major General F. F. Worthington, who is responsible, through the deputy ministers, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is chairman of the civil defence co-ordinating committee. He co-ordinates all federal planning and action in this field, and maintains close contact with provincial civil defence authorities in Canada and with federal agencies in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries.
4.	The civil defence co-ordinating committee: The federal co-ordinator is assisted and advised by the civil defence co-ordinating committee, which has permanent members representative of all government departments concerned with the problem of civil defence. For example, public works, resources and development, trade and commerce, finance, transport, labour, agriculture, the R.C.M.P., and, of course, national health and welfare. The secretary of the chiefs of staff committee and the dominion fire commissioner also sit on this committee. From time to time, representatives of agencies such as the national research council, the atomic energy control board and the defence research board are called in when matters affecting this field are under consideration. These latter organizations, of course, have a continuing responsibility to keep the Minister of National Health and Welfare advised on scientific developments applicable to civil defence in this and other countries.
To act in an advisory and planning capacity, there are a number of important federal committees in such fields as telecommunications, transportation, health planning, welfare planning, food, fire fighting, information and research. These committees are composed of federal civil defence and other specialist officers, representatives of national voluntary and professional associations, and representatives of industry.
5.	We have a federal-provincial advisory council on civil defence. Before turning to a discussion of provincial organization I think I should add that there is a continuing committee known as the federal-provincial advisory council on civil defence, which was set up following the first federal-provincial conference on civil defence in August, 1950. This council is made up of federal and

provincial ministers and their advisers, and is concerned primarily with the division of over-all responsibility between the two levels of jurisdiction.
Now let me say a word about civil defence organization on the provincial level. Under the Canadian constitution, most of the matters bearing on civil defence, fire fighting, police, public health and welfare services, and so on, fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces vhich, of course, have complete control of -heir own affairs,
Every province has a minister directly responsible for civil defence, as well as a provincial defence co-ordinator. Each province also has a civil defence committee composed of senior provincial officials, and in many cases, representatives of province-wide voluntary organizations, and other leading citizens who assist in the development of plans and programs.
Provincial responsibilities cover such matters as the following:
1.	Organization of municipalities for which civil defence is considered necessary;
2.	Co-ordination of services of adjacent municipalities;
3.	Provision of information to municipalities and other agencies operating within the provinces;
4.	Training within the province;
5.	Assistance to municipalities to meet civil disaster;
6.	Protection against sabotage of provincial services and advice on methods of protecting municipal and privately-owned services;
7.	In so far as within provincial authority, providing the necessary legislation to permit local authorities to operate, and to provide for co-operation with adjacent areas in the United States.
Finally, let me say a word about organization at the municipal level. Almost all the larger cities in Canada have established civil defence committees and appointed full-time civil defence directors. Every community of
50,000	population or more, with one exception -Ottawa-and a great number of smaller communities, already have nucleus organizations in existence.
To illustrate I shall briefly list the chief steps suggested for the organization of a target area for civil defence purposes:
1.	Appoint a defence control committee of council members;
2.	Appoint a planning committee of officials;
3.	Appoint a civil defence advisory council, with representation of voluntary agencies;
The Address-Mr. McCusker
4.	On the basis of a survey of possible requirements and available resources, prepare a plan for civil defence;
5.	Train one or more officers at the federal civil defence school;
6.	Appoint and train a full-time or parttime official as civil defence officer;
7.	In co-operation with provincial authorities and in collaboration with military authorities, establish a warning system where practicable;
8.	Fix the location of control headquarters outside the target area;
9.	Raise a group of volunteer workers to become instructors of larger groups;
10.	Over the radio and through the press, inform the population of the main civil defence needs, methods and measures;
11.	Arrange with municipalities within the mutual aid reception areas for the organization of assistance;
12.	In town-planning and location of communities, industries and important installations, to take into account the desirability of dispersion;
13.	Examine and, if possible, amend building codes so as to provide for additional shelter in basements, etc.;
14.	Provide for a program of building up fire-fighting and rescue equipment.
Among the first acts of a new organization would be to survey its community under the headings of: fire-fighting, engineering, casualties, welfare, traffic, transportation, shelter, communications, control centres and blackout.
The local civil defence division could include the following units:	headquarters
section, wardens' section, rescue section, ambulance section, engineer section and welfare section.
So much for organization. The basic federal guide for this was prepared more than a year ago and has been followed, in its general details, by provincial and municipal planners.
It might now be of interest to the house if I outlined in very brief detail some of the major federal achievements in civil defence action since February when the sixteen specific federal fields of responsibility were clearly outlined, and when the division was transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In March, in meetings held with the Canadian Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, Canadian Legion, and the Boy Scouts Association,

The Address-Mr. McCusker the areas of co-operative action were outlined and agreement reached on the particular fields in which each national organization would accept responsibility.
In March also, an agreement was announced between Canada and the United States providing the basis for mutual aid in the event of enemy attack on either country, and preparing the way for close co-operation between the two countries and between the provinces and their neighbouring states in all fields of civil defence action.
In April, a conference was held in Washington between federal civil defence authorities in both countries to work out terms of this co-operation in greater detail.
In June, arrangements were made for a comprehensive coast-to-coast program for giving special training to nurses in the handling of casualties of atomic or other forms of attack.
In July, the basic civil defence pamphlet for the individual citizen "Personal Protection under Atomic Attack" was made available for very large scale distribution. Canada has now produced or has under production twenty basic manuals and pamphlets and has distributed one-quarter of a million copies to the provinces. Many of these pamphlets have been highly praised.
In August, the second meeting of the joint United States-Canadian civil defence committee met in Ottawa to further co-operative action in many important fields.
In September, a special federal grant was made available to assist St. John Ambulance in giving first aid training to 135,000 volunteers who agree to enrol for civil defence work. These volunteers are to be trained in addition to the normal complement of
55,000	enrolled by the order each year in its regular courses. To assist with this training program, a basic civil defence first aid manual is now being distributed in very large quantities, and instructors' training kits will shortly be distributed.
Also in September the government announced that after a careful study of all alternative communications systems, arrangements had been made to lease special facilities so that communities could quickly be warned of impending attack, and that the government, after extensive tests, had ordered and would distribute sirens, at federal expense, for local warning systems in target areas.
The armed forces are establishing the advance warning system to detect any threatened attack on Canada. A radar network will be supplemented by the efforts of a large ground observer corps which will
'Mr. McCusker.]
feed information to a number of strategically located air defence centres. Civil defence liaison officers to be located at these centres will instantly alert the civil defence authorities in target areas lying in the path of any predicted enemy approach.
Apart from these random examples of the chief recent developments in the federal civil defence program, I might briefly review the highlights of recent federal activity under a number of headings:
(a)	Fire fighting. To extend the effective reach of mutual aid in this field the federal government is assisting the provinces in standardizing their fire fighting equipment. Ontario has already come forward with its plan and will receive a federal grant of $300,000. The other provinces are being encouraged to make use of the moneys available. Extensive tests have been made to find the best type of auxiliary fire fighting units to be supplied by the federal government to local divisions for training purposes.
(b)	Equipment. Respirators, steel helmets, special anti-gas protective clothing for thousands of designated civil defence workers are now being distributed by the federal government to the provinces. Several thousand stirrup pumps are being provided for training purposes. Training aids such as stretchers, blankets, thunder-flashes, tear-gas capsules and incendiary bombs are being distributed. Special equipment is being supplied to detect after-effects of atomic attack. After extensive research, a prototype rescue vehicle has been chosen.
(c)	Health services. Under the direction of a special federal unit, the program for health services is making good progress. Federal committees are working on such vital problems as casualty services, first aid, hospital and ambulance services, the provision of laboratory and sanitary services in time of enemy attack, the creation of first aid stations and the large-scale stockpiling of supplies and so on. Nearly 200 physicians and 25 nurses have been given training as instructors in medical aspects of atomic war. A travelling team now moving across Canada is training 400 nurse-instructors this year.
On Monday I attended the third conference of the federal civil defence casualty services working party, representing professional associations of Canada's doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, as well as national voluntary health associations and federal departments. I may say that this was a most interesting and active meeting.
(4) Welfare services. A special federal unit is working in the field of civil defence welfare services. The care of the homeless, the evacuation of casualties, the housing,

clothing and feeding of victims of atomic attack-such problems are being dealt with, key workers are being given special training, and basic programs are being shaped up with the active participation of voluntary welfare organizations and of provincial and local welfare officers.
(e)	Research. An important aspect of federal effort in civil defence is research into the many aspects of modern warfare. The defence research board and the national research council supply expert advice and assistance on defensive measures against atomic, biological and chemical warfare, and in technical aspects of civil defence planning.
(f)	Training. By the end of this year, apart from hundreds of nurse-instructors, we will have trained 400 leaders and instructors in civil defence. These 400 federally-trained leaders and instructors then are going on to train provincial instructors who, in turn, will train the many thousands of volunteer workers required and who are now beginning to come forward in large numbers.
(g)	New activities. The federal government has many plans actively in mind:
(1)	The stockpiling of millions of dollars worth of essential medical supplies across Canada;
(2)	We are strengthening the staff of our federal civil defence headquarters;
(3)	Through plans to train 100 instructors and 2,500 volunteer workers, we are proceeding with the protection of the federal civil servants living in Ottawa;
(4)	We are working out a formula for sharing with the provinces the cost of compensation for anyone injured while training for civil defence;
(5)	We are planning to extend our training program by providing financial assistance to provincially-operated schools.
From what I have said today it can be seen that a great deal of progress has been made in the nine months in which we in the Department of National Health and Welfare have had this grave responsibility of preparing a program for the protection of Canada's civilian population.
No one pretends that there is not still a great deal to do. But I might remind the house, as I have already pointed out earlier in this talk, that civil defence is the responsibility of all three levels of government- and the chief operational responsibility must inevitably and properly rest with the municipal authorities.


Mr. Ferguson:: Could we not just take this as read and have it put on the record? Surely that would save a lot of time.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I would not say that my hon. friend is not interested in the defence of our country or in civil defence.
The Address-Mr. McCusker


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I heard the hon. member say that he had said something, but would it not be better if he said that he had read something? Let it go at that; put it on the record. Just pass it over because that will save a lot of time.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: This is the first time I have read anything to this house. Usually I speak without notes but I considered it most important that this should appear on the record correctly and I would not trust it to memory. I repeat, I would not wish to say that the hon. member is not interested in matters of civil defence and national defence, but I suggest to him that when he gets an opportunity, he take this and read it at home and use it in his own constituency.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I still suggest that we take it as read.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I have only a few more words.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The hon. member has no right to read it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina City says that he has only a few more pages to read.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I shall not delay the house much longer.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the objection to
reading this speech might have been made a little earlier. Perhaps under the circumstances the house will give unanimous consent to the hon. member finishing.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: I notice the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is amused and laughs. If I repeated a speech as frequently in this house as he does I would not have to refer to notes, but this is the first time this speech has been made.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: My speeches are always made from knowledge and I do not have to read them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, have I not the right to show my approval of Your Honour's ruling without being subjected to the remarks the hon. member has made?


Mr. Speaker:: The ruling I made was that under the circumstances the hon. member for Regina City should be allowed to finish reading his speech.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: If I misunderstood the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I will withdraw that remark.
In many of our communities the authorities are alert to their responsibility. In most parts of Canada civil defence programs are beginning to take on solid form. The federal government, for its part, is steadily increasing its capacity and programs to assist the provinces and, through them, the municipalities.

The Address-Mr. Argue
But the key to any really effective civil defence program is voluntary effort. Now that most civil defence organizations are ready to receive and train recruits, individual citizens must come forward in their thousands. To us in this house, aware of the necessity for what must be done in these days to ensure fellow Canadians against the effects of enemy attack, aware of the determined efforts of the federal government to play its part in this vital work, there is a clear responsibility to give leadership in our own communities in our local civil defence activities.
I know that many members are already active. But if we are not to close our eyes to reality, we more than any other group of Canadians, I suggest, should be leaders in developing Canada's civil defence program. By coming forward and volunteering to play our part as good citizens in our own communities, we will help to encourage the general citizens' movement now developing to support the efforts of the civil defence authorities.
Our objective in Canada is to build a responsible and yet realistic program for the protection of our civilian population. As a nation, our first goal is still to work with the free nations to preserve the peace. At the same time we are readying our military defences in case war is forced upon us. But all the while, and moving steadily from the planning into the training and operational stage, we are building a nation-wide network of co-operating civil defence organizations to ensure that if war should ever come upon us we will be ready to protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to continue. I confess freely that I read a good part of it, but I wished to put it on record in full so that it might be of some service, even to my friend who interrupted.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking this afternoon I wish to emphasize to the government once again the really catastrophic situation that faces the farmers of western Canada with respect to disposing of this year's crop and their serious financial predicament, particularly for the farmers who have been unable to harvest any of the 1951 crop. I wish also to repeat that I am in full support of the demands of the Canadian Legion with regard to an increase in the war disability pension and the war veterans allowance.
I believe that the government and the people of Canada have a great duty toward our veterans who have helped in the fight for democracy in two world wars. I believe ihe people of Canada are most anxious that

their government meet the veterans' request in full. I want to make it abundantly clear that I support the Canadian Legion's request for a one-third increase in the war disability pension. While I welcome the resolution which forecasts an increase in the pension, nevertheless I regret it has not been stated therein that the request of the Legion would be met in full. I am most anxious that veterans on war veterans allowance shall have their pensions increased at least to the amounts requested by the Canadian Legion, namely, $50 for a single man and $100 for a married man. My opinion is that with today's cost of living these amounts are most modest and could be even higher. The November issue of The Legionary contains an excellent editorial with respect to the war veterans allowance. It points out:
It is regrettable that the government did not see fit to have a parliamentary committee set up to deal with war veterans allowance during the current fall session so that the increase, whatever it may be, could have helped to tide the recipients over the coming winter months, when expenses are heaviest. The government having announced its decision, however, The "Legionary can only express the fervent hope which it feels sure all ex-service men and women will share, that when the amount of the increase is determined, it will be sufficient to enable these gallant old defenders of Canada's freedom to spend their remaining years in reasonable comfort, free from fear of want or outright poverty. Nothing less than that will satisfy their younger or more fortunately placed comrades- nor, we firmly believe, the citizens of this country generally.
I further suggest that the government should give the same treatment to those veterans now receiving war veterans allowance as has been accorded to other Canadians who will be in receipt of the old age security pension. I think it would be most unfair to these veterans, and it would be dragging the means test in by the back door, if the war veterans allowance is reduced in any way to those recipients of it who qualify for the no means test old age pension. I believe the Canadian people are generous and want their government to meet the request of the Legion so that veterans on pension may be better able to meet the high cost of living.
Turning now to the situation confronting the farmers of the prairie provinces, I should like to outline first of all some of the facts of the present catastrophe. The first is that the 1950 crop was exceedingly large, was severely damaged by frost and consequently was of relatively low grade. The present crop is even larger, and because of adverse weather the grades are a good deal lower than normal. Much of the grain is being graded tough or damp. Last year's crop was large and we find, according to the grain

statistics weekly published by the dominion bureau of statistics, that on October 25 of this year there were on hand in all Canadian positions over 220 million bushels of wheat compared to something over 191 million bushels on the same date of the preceding year.
Not only has there been an increase in the amount of grain in storage at terminals, country elevators and other points but the bulk of the grain in storage is No. 5, No. 6 and feed wheat. As a result there is a real marketing problem. The very severe shortage of box cars in western Canada has been raised in this house already a number of times. Insufficient box cars are available and more elevators are becoming plugged week by week. I have here the latest map of congested pool elevator points in the province of Saskatchewan. Looking at it one can see quite readily that points on the C.P.R. lines are in a much worse position than points on the C.N.R. lines. I suggest to the government, and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) particularly, that they should take a hand directly in this situation and make certain that the C.P.R. allots a greater number of box cars, especially to points on their branch lines, so that the congestion may be alleviated. In replying to a supplementary question put by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on October 30 with respect to the number of congested elevator points in Saskatchewan, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had this to say, as recorded at page 512 of Hansard:
I must say that I have not received that wire. I did receive a letter from George Robertson, the secretary, signed by his own hand, as we say in the house, which mentioned the congested points. I did not count them, but if there were one hundred I would be greatly surprised.
That followed a statement by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that there were 528 pool elevator points in Saskatchewan congested on that date. In my hand I have a report of the Saskatchewan wheat pool as it appeared in the Leader-Post of November 1. The first paragraph of that report reads as follows:
In our message to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under date of October 19 the minister was advised that as at that date 528 pool country elevators out of a total of 1,165 elevators are plugged for all practical purposes and cannot take in grain as offered.
The wheat pool had indicated to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on October 19 that there were 528 pool elevator points in Saskatchewan plugged, yet on October 30 the Minister of Trade and Commerce gets up in the house and says that so far as he knows there were less than 100 elevator points in
The Address-Mr. Argue Saskatchewan that were plugged. The Minister of Trade and Commerce should get his facts straight, and should realize that this is a deplorable situation. Unless something is done, great hardship will be suffered by the people of Saskatchewan. The situation is not getting any better.
In a further report a week later the Saskatchewan wheat pool said that instead of 528 wheat pool elevator points being plugged, there were then 663 pool elevator points in Saskatchewan that were unable to take grain as offered for sale. Once again I ask the government to take a hand in the situation, and to see that more box cars are made available for the disposal of grain in Saskatchewan. When the farmers are unable to market their grain, then some steps must be taken in order to provide the farmers with sufficient cash to pay their store bills and to meet their family living costs for the winter. In a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I asked that consideration be given to the suggestion that a 75 per cent advance payment be made on farm-stored grain. The Prime Minister stated that the matter is under consideration, but an official decision has not been reached yet.
I want to point out to the government that an advance payment equal to 75 per cent of the initial price on farm-stored grain is not a political question. In a letter to the government the premier of Saskatchewan made that request. I see by the Leader-Post that the leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal party, Mr. Walter Tucker, favours such a program. Farm organizations are calling upon the government to make an advance payment on farm-stored grain. I feel that, in a situation such as this, the government should act speedily to assist our farmers. At this session I have placed on the order paper a bill to provide for payment of storage on farm-stored grain. Under the present wheat board act the Canadian wheat board has authority to make a payment on farm-stored grain if directed to do so by regulation. The bill I have proposed would make it mandatory on the Canadian wheat board to make a payment on farm-stored grain. I believe it is only fair that the farmers should receive the same payment on farm-stored grain as that received by the elevator companies. Why should a farmer have to go to the expense of building and repairing granaries every year and receive no storage payment, when the elevator companies at the local points spend large sums of money building annexes in order to receive a payment of one-thirtieth of a cent per bushel per day from the wheat board for the grain stored in those annexes?

The Address-Mr. Argue
The Saskatchewan wheat pool has always handled a larger percentage of the farmers' grain when the wheat pool was in a position to accept all the grain the farmers offered to their own co-operative organization. When you have a situation, as you have at present, with over half of the wheat pool elevators plugged, then the farmers' own co-operative marketing organization is at a great disadvantage. The majority of the farmers haul their grain to their own co-operative marketing agency, the Saskatchewan wheat pool. But as soon as the pool elevators become plugged they are often forced, through financial circumstances, to haul their grain to the line elevators. If storage were paid on grain on the farm, a farmer could possibly then afford to store his grain on the farm until such time as there was room at his local elevator point for that grain. So I say that a storage payment, in addition to helping the individual farmer, would greatly assist the wheat pool, the farmers' own marketing organization.
If the government should decide, as I hope it will, to make an advance to farmers of 75 per cent of the initial price for wheat on the farm, it will be of material help to those farmers who have already harvested their grain but who are unable to market any substantial quantity of it. But it would still leave unassisted a smaller portion of farmers who are in an even worse position financially because they have been unable to harvest any of their crop. The premier of Saskatchewan has stated that over $200 million worth of grain is under the snow in Saskatchewan, and is likely to go through the winter unharvested. For those farmers who have their whole crop unharvested, and who have no hope of getting any harvesting done before next spring, I believe the government of Canada should co-operate with the provincial and municipal authorities in assisting the farmers by making a loan of $10 per acre on the crops still unharvested. Once again I say this question seems to me to be outside the realm of politics. The premier of Saskatchewan, and, as well, the leader of the Liberal party in that province, have advocated that plan. The rural municipalities are prepared to co-operate, as is the provincial government. A loan of $10 per acre on unharvested grain will be made if this government decides as it should to co-operate with the other governmental bodies. I have suggested to the government that the steps to be taken in order to deal with this calamitous situation should include a better allocation of box cars in the west, a 75 per cent advance on farm-stored grain, the payment of farm storage, and co-operation with other governments in the advancing of $10 per acre for grain which is unharvested. In addition to that, I believe TMr. Argue.]

that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should immediately announce the final payment on the 1950 crop and see to it that the cheques are mailed just as quickly as possible.
In an answer to a question of mine that was brought down today, I am informed that the wheat board account for the 1950 crop year was closed out on October 20, but the amount of payment and the price for wheat when the account was closed has not yet been determined pending, as the answer says, completion of the relevant accounting. From that return I would take it that it is going to be some considerable time before the final payment is announced, the cheques are in the mail, and the farmers receive their payment. In a situation such as this, where farmers are so desperately short of money, I think that the final payment on the 1950 crop-which is the farmers' own money-should be made available immediately, and that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should take steps to see that that is done.
So much then for the present marketing difficulties in western Canada. I now want to deal with the long-term wheat price. The present price is insufficient to cover their cost of production and provide a reasonable standard of living and a fair share of the national income. We in this group were not at all satisfied with the final payment made on the five-year pool. But as I have said before, farmers receiving $1833 a bushel as they did during that five-year period were in a much better financial position than they are at the present time. According to the dominion bureau of statistics' eleven-factor index, the average cost of production during that five-year period was 176 -1. The last available eleven-factor index was published in April of this year; and shows the cost of production at 232-5. If $1.83 was a fair price for wheat during the years 1945-49 on the basis of the then prevailing cost of production, then in order that the farmer may receive the same purchasing power today the price of wheat should be at least $2.42 per bushel. We all know that the final price is going to be very much lower than $2.42.
Canada signed the international wheat agreement plan. We in this group have always supported international agreements for the marketing of farm commodities. But we say to the government that never again should the farmers of western Canada be asked to support an agreement which sets a stable or frozen price for wheat a number of years in advance, unless the government will guarantee that they will not allow the farmers' cost of production to get out of hand

until a point is reached as it now is where that international wheat agreement price becomes completely inadequate.
As I have said already in this session on another matter, I believe that in the government's wheat policy-as in other policies affecting agricultural products-the farmers should have a guaranteed floor based on a parity price. The wheat farmer in the United States is infinitely better off than the wheat farmer in Canada. The United States government signed the international wheat agreement and agreed to supply a greater quantity of wheat than that supplied by Canada. But the United States government has never forced United States farmers to take merely the international wheat agreement price for wheat with their increasing cost of production. The cost of producing wheat has risen in the United States, but the United States farmer is guaranteed 90 per cent of parity, which this year is $2.17 a bushel.
In addition to that guarantee, the farmer in the United States receives any increase in the price finally obtained for wheat. He receives the highest prevailing price. The Chicago price recently has been approximately $2.55 a bushel. The United States farmer receives the full price. For the hundreds of millions of bushels of United States wheat being sold under the international wheat agreement the United States farmers are not asked to make up the difference, as are the farmers in Canada, but rather the government of the United States pays the difference between the highest price and the international wheat agreement price. In Canada, however, our government refuses to pay anything more than the international wheat agreement price; and in addition, it forces Canadian wheat producers to subsidize the Canadian consumer, at the present time, to the extent of more than 50 cents a bushel. I say it is a gross injustice to force any group within Canada to subsidize everybody else in Canada; and I think the time has arrived when the government should give to the wheat producers of Canada the best possible price for wheat going into the production of Canadian flour and for use in Canada.
If the government does not want wheat sold to the Canadian millers at $2.50 a bushel to result in an increase in the price of bread, then I suggest to the government that it provide a subsidy to the Canadian consumer in order that the price of bread will not be increased. But in the meantime it is certainly unjust and discriminatory for the government to force prairie wheat producers to subsidize everybody else in Canada, when the Canadian government and the Canadian public are
The Address-Mr. Low risking absolutely nothing in the way of placing a floor price under wheat. I think it is time the wheat producers of Canada received a guaranteed price for wheat year in and year out, at a price commensurate with the cost of production.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I impress upon the government the need to give more than mere consideration to all of the questions we have raised in regard to storage, the 75 per cent advance, increased box car facilities and so on. The time has arrived when the wheat producers in western Canada want action, not merely consideration.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies whatever for taking part in this debate the second time. I say that because, since I first spoke on the C.C.F. amendment, a number of very important things have taken place in the house which require that I do say something this afternoon. I do not intend to take very long to do it, but I feel perfectly justified in speaking in support of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) on behalf of the Social Credit group.
Before I launch into things which I want to say in connection with the amendment and other things, Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment just briefly on some things that have been said here this afternoon by other hon. members. First, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker), who placed before the house what I think is very useful information concerning civil defence. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Regina City, that I look upon this whole matter of civil defence as of very great importance to this country, and I feel that too much information about it cannot possibly be given to the Canadian people. Therefore I welcome any information we can get here. I have been personally interested in the whole program for civil defence, and have stated on various occasions what my own views were. I do not want to go into them this afternoon, but I should like to point out to the hon. member for Regina City that in the program as it is now going forward something seems to be lacking.
I am told by various people that considerable complaint is being made about the training schemes that are being conducted in various centres throughout the country. The complaint is that trainees are taken into the centres; they are given a period of training in civil defence, and when they go back home to their own communities they have nothing to work with. Well, that is like what the United States government did a few
1022	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low years ago. About the time that they were building the Alaska highway, early in the second world war, the United States government sent medical officers and nurses up into the far reaches of Alaska to teach the Eskimo the art of modern living. They thought that the Eskimos were backward. They brought representatives from the various tribes into certain centres to give them training, and then they were supposed to go back and help their less fortunate friends and members of their families and their communities. Well, one of the interesting things they did was to tell the Eskimos that they should be more up-to-date in the way they expressed themselves in art. As you know, the Eskimos are very clever in the carving of ivory tusks and that sort of thing. They make ivory statuettes, and very interesting little things that become very valuable. But these people from the United States said: "You are doing it wrong. What you need to do is use our electric stylus." So they trained these young people in the art of carving with an electric stylus, and when they went back home to their igloos, what did they have? Nothing at all. I am afraid that in some respects the civil defence program reminds me of the program of training the Eskimo in the art of modern living. What I and what I believe everyone who is keenly interested in this thing and concerned about it would like to see is more equipment to work with in the various communities that are concerned or that may be in danger, so that when the trainees finish their courses and go back to their communities they will have something worth while to do and worth while to work with. I just throw that suggestion out, but I do want to commend the hon. member for Regina City on bringing the matter before the house as he did this afternoon. I for one was not bored by his reading the address. Sometimes we find that people have to read addresses in order to get the details on record.
I should also like to commend the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) on what I think was a very timely and sensible address this afternoon on the western Canadian farm situation. I understand that he has now gone to the same committee that I should have been attending, and which I had to sort of chuck for a little while in order to speak, as I wanted to say something on this amendment.
The hon. member for Assiniboia raised this whole tragic situation as it exists in the prairie provinces, and it is no less than tragic in many parts of those provinces, particularly in the province of Alberta, although


I am not at all minimizing the difficulties they are having in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba. I am advised that in Alberta not more than 49 per cent of one of the greatest crops in their history has been safely gathered in. That is a tragic situation. Last summer I saw many wheat crops that would have yielded 60 bushels to the acre. Many of them now lie under the snow or lie flat on the ground and frozen so that they cannot be harvested.
Much of the beet crop in the Lethbridge southern area is still under the snow, and perhaps they never will get a good deal of it. These things are hard to meet. They are things about which we can do little in this parliament, but we certainly can do some other things to alleviate the results of this tragic situation as they affect the farmers in those smitten areas.
I should like to say a word about this whole matter of marketing. People in many parts of Alberta had a hard time to get their grain to market. Those who were fortunate enough to harvest the grain could not get it into the elevators because they became plugged very early in the season. In the Peace river country, which I represent, we have not been able to ship more than a very small portion of our grain simply because there has been a shortage of cars, and in many parts of my riding today you find huge piles of oats, barley and wheat out in the fields subjected to severe weather conditions. Under these circumstances it is inevitable that the grain will deteriorate and farmers will take great losses. Why is it there? Simply because there is no storage space to receive it. The elevators have been plugged for weeks. There have been no cars in some areas in the Peace river country, and particularly north of the river, for quite a long time, and many fewer cars than there ought to have been to bring out the wheat that is there.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in the area around Grimshaw, Fairview, Hines Creek and points in between, there are vast quantities of milling wheat. That is something that is important. It is milling wheat that ought to be brought into market as quickly as possible. I understand that vessels have actually sailed across the seas from European points to be loaded with our wheat here in Canada, and they have had to return empty, or had to wait for quite a lengthy period before they could load. There has been quite a lot of milling wheat in the Peace river country that should have been brought out. You see, we have been more fortunate up there than they have been in the southern part of the province, although we are five

hundred miles farther north than the Lethbridge district. I understand we have been able to harvest about 80 per cent of our wheat. Some of it, as I said, is of milling quality.
I urge upon the wheat board who, I understand, have direction of shipping policy now, and I urge upon the transport controller, to see to it that a fair allocation of available cars is made so that grain can be drawn out of the Peace river country, and taken to market.
The situation is such that the farmers in that area cannot pay their debts, because they cannot market any grain. They cannot buy the clothing they need and the clothing their children need, because they cannot market their grain. That is why I think some suggestion such as that offered by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) is timely. I say the government ought to give consideration to allowing some sort of advance on grain stored on the farms, so as to help those people out. It is a cold country, and when winter sets in up in that area, it stays. The children of families up there need warm clothing and good food; and they cannot have it until the farmers market their crops.
The government should also attend to something else. The shipping situation now existing in the Peace river country is not one peculiar to this year, but is one which develops all too often. Almost every year for quite a number of years we have had a shortage of box cars and grain cars up there. We are told one of the reasons is that the Peace river country is isolated. Of course it is isolated; but one of the biggest reasons for this is that the railways in this country do not supply that far northern area with its fair share of shipping space.
I believe the government ought to put pressure on the railroads to build a link from the western terminus of the Northern Alberta Railways, at Hines Creek, on the north side of the river, or from Dawson Creek on the south, to the Pacific coast; or to link up at some point with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway; and it should be done just as quickly as possible. That is the only way the people in that area can get justice in the matter of shipping. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to see what they can do to relieve the bad situation that develops in all too many years in that area.
I have one further consideration. I am beginning to think the government ought to give consideration to the building of a storage elevator in that great northern area, where
The Address-Mr. Low grain could be accumulated, properly cleaned, properly dried and processed before coming out. I believe this would effect a large saving not only to the farmers themselves but to the wheat board. I am asking the government to give consideration to the building of a government elevator with a capacity of one or two million bushels up in that area, so that the farmers may market their wheat. In those years when we have large quantities of frozen or low-grade wheat it can be received into the elevator and properly dried. Some of it may require processing and cleaning before it is dried out. I believe this might be a solution for some of the difficulties in that part of the country.
I should like now to say a few words about the subamendment moved on behalf of this group by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). Perhaps I had better read it again because, while it has been put on the record a number of times, I believe it does not do any harm to draw it to the attention of hon. members frequently.
The subamendment is worded as follows:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Furthermore we regret that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to compensate the recipients of war veterans allowance for the increase in the cost of living by an appropriate increase in the amount of the allowance."
No group of people in Canada are more desirous of some increase in their allowance than these people who have been receiving or are likely to receive war veterans allowances. We moved the subamendment because we were sincere and earnest in our efforts to try to get some help for this particular group of people, who have been suffering because of the terrific increase in the cost of living, and who have not been able in many instances to live decently.
The government has received appeals from veterans organizations throughout Canada asking that the same kind of consideration be given in connection with war veterans allowances as was given in connection with pensions. But when the appeal was made on behalf of war veterans and their dependents, the government has said, "Well, we will give consideration, anyway, to doing something some time. Perhaps next session we will take the matter up, when a committee is appointed."
Let me point out that when the urgent call for men went out in 1914 and again in 1939, asking them to give their time and effort, and their very lives if necessary, to save the world for democracy, these men did not say, "Well, we will set up a committee next spring to consider the matter, and if at that time it is thought advisable we may
1024	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low ask our people to do something about it." They did not do that at all. They asked no questions. They made no reservations or qualifications whatever. Those men saw their duty. They came forward at once and gave themselves to the task awaiting them, without waiting for committees or for consideration of any kind.
They did their duty. They protected Canada in her time of stress, and I say it is only common decency that Canada should protect them now in their time of economic trouble. One can imagine these veterans and their families attempting to get along on $70 a month, with a cost of living that has almost doubled since 1939. It is shameful, and it casts a shadow of doubt upon the gratitude of the Canadian people.	_
It is true that at one time we established for these men allowances that were perhaps as generous as those provided by any nation in the world. At that time they were fairly adequate. In those days the Canadian dollar would buy a dollar's worth of goods. But that time has gone. Today the allowances are not adequate to the needs of the veterans, their widows and dependents. Today, to give these men the allowances they are now given is just about like giving a person an umbrella to protect him in a hurricane.
A thankful people should do more than that. We can do more.
I have not heard a single person argue in the house that we cannot do more. It was with the hope that the consciences of members in the House of Commons might be touched and quickened that we Social Crediters moved our subamendment. We have no desire in moving it to embarrass anybody. We have no desire to play politics with such a serious matter. I claim that the amendment is straightforward. Everyone who has spoken on it thus far has approved of it, has indicated his support, and this includes members of all the opposition parties. There have been only one or two on the opposition side of the house, speaking in this debate since the amendment was moved, who did not indicate their support. An interesting thing to note is that not one single speaker has risen in his place since the amendment was moved to speak against it or to indicate in any way that he was opposed to it.
What does it mean? It means that there is a remarkable unanimity of opinion in this house with regard to these war veterans allowances. I am certain that if they were free to speak on this matter at this time there would be remarkable unanimity among Liberal members. I am not blaming them for not taking the floor at the moment, but I


do submit that before this debate closes somebody from the Liberal side ought to get up and give good reasons why war veterans allowances should not be increased to at least $100 per month for married and $50 per month for single veterans. That should be done now and not wait until next spring.
There is a fund from which this money can be obtained. That fund is not depleted. Many of these veterans are going to be in straitened circumstances this winter. Cold weather is coming on and their dependents may need warm clothing. Goodness knows, warm clothing costs money these days. Just go down and see how much it costs to buy a decent suit of underwear for a child, let alone warm underclothing for a veteran who may be working outside in the cold weather, provided he can get a job. That is the catch because most of them are suffering some form of disability.
Surely no one can argue that this is not the time to help these men. We should hang our heads in shame if we allow this debate to conclude without having a statement from the government side to the effect that they intend to do the decent thing at this session for these veterans and their dependents. The cost would not be very great. If it were a matter of $100 million or $200 million, or even $25 million or $30 million it might be necessary to wait until next spring, but let me point out some of the facts. The total number of war veteran allowance recipients as at September 30, 1951, was 30,876; the total number of widows of veterans was 8,038; of dependents, 724; of orphans, 143: or a total of 38,781.
The report of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1951, gives the total annual liability as at March 31, 1951, including the liabilities as a result of the amendments of the 1950 session, as $23,096,744. To provide $100 to married veterans and $50 to single veterans, and to do the other things that have been asked for by the veteran organizations across the country, would not cost this country more than $6 million or $7 million annually.
Is it not shameful for us to hesitate and say that we will take up this matter next spring when only $6 million or $7 million is involved to bring happiness and a decent way of life to 38,000 of our valiant people who are faced with the near approach of Christmas? Hon. members of this house will have pretty hard hearts if they do not do something about the situation at this session.
Speaking on behalf of the members of my group may I say that we appreciate deeply the stand that has been taken by the representatives of all the parties on this side of

the house who have spoken. I should like to mention them individually, but let it be reduced to this simple sentence. I think some very stirring and eloquent appeals have been made and we appreciate the support that has been indicated because we are earnest and sincere about this amendment.
Let me say by way of conclusion that there would be no need of forcing a vote on this subamendment if someone on the government side, preferably the minister or his parliamentary assistant, would rise in his place and give the house the assurance that before the end of the session something will be done. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) says that it will be all right if I say to you, and to the house through you, that in that circumstance he would be prepared to withdraw the subamendment immediately and not attempt to force a vote on it. That is how we feel in connection with war veterans allowances.
During the course of his remarks the other night on this same matter the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said that he was supporting this subamendment. He made a most interesting appeal for granting to these veterans and their dependents some measure of relief from the high cost of living. Then the hon, member went on to deliver a mild reprimand or rebuke to the member for Peace River because of an alleged statement that he was supposed to have made in British Columbia. As reported on page 946 of Hansard of November 12, the hon. member made this statement:
I regret I find that duty requires me to bring to the attention of the house some of the remarks of his leader-
He was referring to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch).
-on a certain occasion and to do my best to correct the false impression he may have created. I am speaking of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low).
Then the hon. member for Kootenay West is reported as follows on page 947:
I have been asked by a number of members of the Fruit Growers Association of British Columbia, to which I belong, to bring this matter before the house to correct the false impression created by the hon. member's remarks. I will be generous enough to say that I think the hon. member for Peace River spoke without thoroughly examining the situation, and without a full knowledge of the facts.
Then the hon. member proceeded to give some valuable information, which I deeply appreciated, and he went on further to give some kindly advice to me and other members of the house, which I also appreciated. We cannot have too much good advice, but I usually like to see the giver of advice prepared to take his own medicine. I do not like to see doctors prescribe certain things
The Address-Mr. Low for patients unless they are prepared under similar circumstances to take their own medicine. Evidently that is something that the hon. member for Kootenay West was not prepared to do. He said to me in effect: A lot of trouble can be stirred up if people talk about things they know nothing about; it is always wise, if you are going to have something to say, to get the facts. I agree with that; I think that is sound advice, and I am quite prepared to follow it and to thank him for it. But the hon. member turned right round and did what he accused me of doing. He did not get the facts. He did not attempt to.
The hon. member was doing his duty because he had been asked by the fruit growers association to raise this question on the floor of the house, and I suppose he took as his cue a letter which he received from them, or maybe several letters. Then he said he had seen a dispatch in a Vancouver paper, had read an article in Country Life, and had been asked by the fruit growers to bring up the matter on the floor of the house. I suggest that the hon. member had a perfectly easy way of finding out if the alleged statements had been made, but he did not, and because he did not he took for granted that the reports he had read were true. He accused me of taking for granted some things that somebody told me were true.
I suggest with all deference, and with the kindliest feeling toward the hon. member for Kootenay West, that very often too much can be said about certain things and a lot of trouble can be stirred up without getting at the facts of the situation. That is exactly what has happened in this case. Actually what my hon. friend did the other night was to try to correct impressions not created by me but created by a newspaper report that did not accurately represent what I had said at my Summerland meeting. My attention was drawn to this newspaper report by a telegram which I received in Mission, B.C., a few days after I had been in Summerland, from the president of the fruit growers association, Mr. Garrish. I dictated a reply to that telegram and arranged to have it sent from Salmon Arm, British Columbia, on the second day of October. In it I explained the situation to Mr. Garrish and exactly what I had said.
Evidently Mr. Garrish did not make that letter available to Mr. Hayden, the writer of the article that was quoted by my hon. friend as having appeared in Country Life. Furthermore, I did reply to the article that appeared in Country Life, and I am going to read into the record what I said as a means of correcting this whole situation, if I possibly can. I
1026

The Address-Mr. Low do not need to quote all of it, but I want to read the pertinent part of the letter which I sent to Mr. Charles A. Hayden, editor and manager of Country Life in Vernon, British Columbia, on November 6. It reads as follows:
It is quite evident that you were not present at my meeting in Summerland. It is also quite apparent that your whole article is based on hearsay which you have assumed to be wholly true, without making any effort to check its accuracy. Moreover, it appears that you have not seen, or heard of, a letter which I wrote to Mr. A. R. Garrish on October 2, and arranged to have typed and posted to him from Salmon Arm. This letter was in reply to the telegram which Mr. Garrish sent to me on the evening I spoke in Mission. If you did see my letter, then your article is all the more amazing in that you completely ignored the facts stated therein. I would rather think that you hadn't seen it.
A copy of my letter to Mr. Garrish is attached hereto. It will make clear to you what I did say at my Summerland meeting, which was the only place where I made any comments about the fruit situation, except at Mission and Salmon Arm when I merely replied to Mr. Garrish's telegram in much the same terms as expressed in my letter.
Now, sir, I should like to make it perfectly clear to you that in my Summerland meeting I never mentioned the B.C. fruit growers organization. I did not even allude to them in my speech. I did not attempt to blame them for any situation whatsoever. My only reference to "gestapo" methods was in connection with the practice of stopping visiting cars and trucks and requiring them, before leaving B.C., to unload and leave any fruit for which the drivers cannot show a receipt as having been purchased through "authorized channels." Even my reference here was specifically to surplus fruits, or fruits which for some reason were considered unsaleable, and which might have been given to the visitors as a gift, or which might have been traded to the visitors for grain feeds so badly needed by B.C. farmers. I was not referring to the fruits ordinarily considered by the B.C. fruit growers to be marketable at a fair return to the farmer. Even then, I did not blame the fruit growers organization for the practice, for I am thoroughly acquainted with the market problems under which they labour in the present financial state of affairs in this country.
I did refer in my Summerland speech to the year 1950 when the big problem harassing the fruit growers was the problem of finding a lucrative market for 8 million boxes of apples and a bumper crop of plums and some other fruits. I want to make it abundantly clear that I did not at Summer-land, nor at any other point, advocate a return to what you call "wildcat" selling. In the course of my public life I have always advocated orderly systems of marketing under the local control of producers boards or organizations, with sympathetic and helpful assistance from provincial and dominion departments of trade, finance and agriculture. If the mischievous reporter who rushed out of my meeting and garbled what I did say had remained long enough to hear the whole story, he would have learned that the sort of marketing system which I believe would be successful in your province, as well as other parts of Canada, is not very different from the system presently followed by the B.C. Fruit Growers Association. If he had stayed long enough he would have learned that the emphasis in my address was placed on what become "unsaleable surpluses" of good fruits in many years of cur experience.
In that part of my Summerland address dealing with fruit marketing I placed the emphasis on three things, namely:

1.	Encouragement of the production of an optimum quantity of fruits in those areas that are suited to fruit growing.
2.	Close co-operation between growers and provincial and dominion authorities to ensure orderly and complete distribution, with smallest possible wastage, of the fruit that is produced.
3.	The use of a compensated price discount type of subsidy, to ensure that the people of Canada can buy the fruit at a price to the producers which represents a fair profit to them on their investment and their efforts. It would require only a comparatively small per capita increase in consumption of any one of our fruits in any year to cause a surplus to disappear entirely.
With all these facts and proposals before you as I said and used them, how can you possibly contend that I "basely harmed" the fruit growers of B.C.? I am wondering now if you are fair and just enough to print these letters in the next issue of your periodical. I hope so. My thanks if you do. I have nothing but good will towards the B.C. Fruit Growers Association.
That ends the letter I sent to Mr. Hayden in answer to the article which appeared in the October issue of Country Life. Let me say most emphatically, Mr. Speaker, that I have never at any time on my visits around the country attacked organizations like the B.C. Fruit Growers Association because I know what they have gone through. I lived on the prairies. I saw the development of our co-operatives and pools, and appreciated the necessity that drove our people to organize these pools and co-operatives. I know the terrible difficulties they had during the thirties to market their products. At the same time I have always deplored waste of any kind, especially when there are thousands of people needing and wanting what is being wasted.
I know that nature is prodigal in many years, especially in the production of fruits, and that sometimes vast surpluses of some of these fruits are produced which to many people appear to be unsaleable. I am aware that fruit surpluses are very perishable but there is no insurmountable obstacle, in my judgment, to getting them to people who will make good use of them. The co-operative efforts of such organizations as the B.C. Fruit Growers Association to prevent waste and to distribute efficiently are most commendable, and I have nothing but the highest praise for them. I think they have gone a long way, but their co-operation can only go so far. In addition to their own co-operative efforts, they require the co-operation of the provincial and federal governments through the departments of Agriculture and Finance to make world markets available. The group co-operatives will not prevent waste of good food. They will not achieve full and efficient distribution of the fruit unless the people of Canada have the purchasing power available with which to buy the fruits that are produced. Now, that is fundamental, and that

was the thing I stressed in my speech at Summerland. Here is where the federal government must take the responsibility, because they have the authority to see to it that sufficient purchasing power is distributed amongst the people of Canada so that they can buy all the fruit that is offered for sale.
The fact is that many thousands of our people would like to get more fruit, or even some fruit-I will put it that way. But in spite of this so-called buoyant period, the people have to spend what little they have for what they consider to be much more pressing needs. I believe it is clear to everybody in this house that if fruit and bread and butter are competing with one another for the meagre dollars people do have in their pockets, then fruit generally comes off second best. That is the difficulty: the people have not got the purchasing power for both. It is a fact also that we have never had a fruit crop which would not have been entirely bought up if the Canadian people had had the money to buy it. In the years when there were surplus apples, it would have required only a small increase in the per capita weekly consumption to cause the surplus to entirely disappear. One more box per family per year in Canada would have caused the disappearance of 3 [DOT] 5 million boxes. That is the point I was emphasizing in my address in British Columbia. We Social Crediters have a technique by which such a thing as increasing this per capita consumption sufficient to do away with any surplus can be accomplished. I refer to the consumer discount mechanism. It was this sort of thing that I placed before my Summerland meeting. I did not blame the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association. I did deplore some of the things they have to do under the present economic set-up, but I blamed then, as I blame now, the provincial and federal governments for allowing those conditions to exist and to persist; conditions which make necessary, in the interests of self-preservation, a lot of peculiar and illogical practices by fruit growers as well as other producers in this country.
That is all I am going to say about it, Mr. Speaker. I have placed my case before you in answer to the statements made the other night by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I do not bear him any ill will for bringing the matter to the attention of the house. I thank him, because it gives us an opportunity of getting this matter cleared away. I assure him again that I bear the B.C. Fruit Growers Association no ill will; I have no desire to hurt them or place any more obstacles in their path than they have. I only wish to be helpful and this is the spirit in which I spoke to the meeting at Summerland.
The Address-Mr. Low


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask the hon. member a question? In June, 1949, did he not say that the small fruits at Yarrow in the province of British Columbia were going to waste? I am quoting from memory, and I can be corrected if I am wrong. Did he not say that the fruit was rotting in the sun in barrels? I presume the hon. member did not know that those small fruits had already been purchased by the British government at a sacrifice, in so far as the price to the farmers was concerned. Did the hon. member make that statement at Abbotsford, Chilliwack and other places when, if he had inquired, he would have learned the facts? I know the hon. member, and I know he wants to be fair. I have every appreciation of his sincerity, but I believe he made that statement as recorded in the press in June, 1949. Is the hon. member not willing to admit-


Mr. Wylie:: When you sit down.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Either the hon. member is in favour of the co-operative movement, the B.C. Tree Fruits and the Fraser Valley Co-operative Union which markets our small fruits, or he is not. Are you in favour or are you not?


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I certainly favour the co-operative efforts that are being made and that have been made through both my hon. friend's Fraser Valley constituency and my hon. friends for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). I have never at any time criticized those activities, but I did-I am going to answer my hon. friend's first question-during the election campaign of 1949 draw the attention of the people of Canada to the fact that there were large hogsheads of berry pulp lying out under the sun at Abbotsford. I saw them with my own eyes. I was taken over by the manager of the co-operative plant there, a Mennonite plant, who showed me these surpluses and told me definitely that they could not be sold. Furthermore, he told me, Mr. Speaker, what I have heard the hon. member say in this house often- no one has said it more often than he-that fruits were allowed to go to waste, and that in his own constituency there were surpluses that had to be moved somehow.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I claimed, as I claim now, that those surpluses that were lying out under the sun were not returning a single cent to the growers, and that something ought to be done to see that they were distributed amongst the Canadian people. I am told that it was not long after that that the federal government did something about it, so that the berry pulp was taken care of and was used. I am quite sure that what I

The Address-Mr. Ferguson said had the effect of causing some action on the part of the government that was locked in an election campaign.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The
longer I sit here as a member of parliament, the more I am reminded of that very popular song "Cruising down the river on a Sunday afternoon." This government frequently reminds me of that picture, cruising down the river on a Sunday afternoon. So far as the vitally important things pertaining to this country are concerned, they are still cruising along. Let me remind you that last June there were four boatloads of these sailors who reached the open sea of public opinion, and they were badly wrecked. I believe when the next election comes along this government will find it is not cruising down the river on a Sunday afternoon, and it will be wrecked.
So far as a national government with national ideas is concerned, it certainly is an eye-opener to reflect upon the fact that this government has been in power since approximately 1935. They have simply steered away from a reef here and a reef there. They have not faced up to actual realities. Their whole desire is to stay in power at any price, irrespective of the suffering of the people, as long as they can blindfold the people to their suffering.
Today we find what? We find housing shortages, transportation lacking for wheat, armed forces not adequate or not equipped properly actually to meet the conditions that face Canada and the world today. Our armed forces and their equipment are sufficient to meet the viewpoint of this government as to requirements, but it is as plain as anything in the world that they are not sufficient to meet the unfortunate requirements that we find in the world today. This government are saying: We are doing all right; we are doing our fair share. They seem to be afraid to set an example, as they should, to the entire world, and to step out much further than they have in their contribution to world events and the progress toward peace.
Since 1935 this government has not shown, as it could have, a great national spirit, a great desire to develop a great country nationally. In the year 1951 we find ourselves puttering around with this government over the damming of a river, something which most people believe to be essential and absolutely necessary, in a great and glorious province called Saskatchewan. It is being pushed around as usual. In the matter of the irrigation of these farms, the development of the public utilities and the power projects of the province of Saskatchewan we are trying to leave that poor sister province of ours to

develop itself without the proper and necessary urgent aid that should have been given years ago. It is all right for us to talk as businessmen and say: We have another commission. We will see what this commission has to say. But I contend that a government composed of businessmen able to grasp the significance of the potentialities of the Dominion of Canada would have said to the people of Canada years ago either one of two things. They would have said: The damming of this South Saskatchewan river is not feasible; or they would have said: It should be gone ahead with at once. We have no assurance in the house today that this project is workable or desirable or, if it is, that it will be gone ahead with in one month, six months or five years. Every member of the House of Commons knows that he is in a quandary, with the probable exception of a few members of the cabinet. The rest of Canada, with a population of about 14 million people, are wondering what is going to be done with regard to a project which, if carried out, would result in tremendous benefits to Canada from coast to coast.
We in Ontario are interested in the development of every part of Canada from St. John's to Vancouver. We realize that the essential development of every province will be a great boon to Ontario, the province in which I live. Ontario cannot prosper unless all of Canada prospers. No province of Canada can prosper as it should without the development of this entire great dominion, supported by Canadians from coast to coast with one thought in mind, namely the development of a great country.
We talk about high taxes and the high cost of living. Both those conditions can be laid at the feet of this government. This is a wealthy country. This is not a poverty-stricken country which cannot produce the wherewithal to keep our people employed in developing the country from coast to coast. That is true of every single province, without exception. But what do we find? We find the cost of living increasing, not because we are short of the things that God gave to Canadians and not because we are short of the necessary monetary remuneration for effort. We find it increasing because we are short of labour, because we are short of planned immigration for this country. What did the minister of immigration do during the war period? He sat and drew his wages and did nothing. When the war was over, everybody wondered what the immigration development would be in the Dominion of Canada. We got the usual thing: procrastination from one minister after the other. Right to this minute-whether it is the fault of the present minister or whether it is a disease he has contracted from this

government since he has been minister-there is the same old lack of planned immigration.
We talk about the development of the great St. Lawrence waterway. If the word were given tonight to go ahead with it, you have not the necessary cement or materials and you have not the labour to produce all the necessary commodities. It is all poppycock. There is absolutely no common sense in anything this government tells the public today. They may as well face up to the facts.
Then when we come to our veterans allowances, what do we find? Imagine a country like the Dominion of Canada saying what has been said to one group-and it should have been any other group but that one-the war veterans, men drawing burnt-out pensions agreed on by this government and supported wholeheartedly by everybody in Canada; men who served in the first war and who lay in the mud every night in the first month on Salisbury plains, who had to move their blankets every day they were there for the first month; men who stood in the trenches without adequate reinforcements for days, and who spent half the time in the front lines with water up to their knees. It was felt and truthfully believed that these men had aged ten years already. The man who was thirty in 1914, thirty-five years later is sixty-five; the man who was verging on forty is seventy-six, which, plus the ten which this government agreed he had aged-and that was felt to be so by every honest and decent citizen in Canada- makes that man eighty-six now. That group of aged people have been selected by this government to be under control and to have rationed out to them an inadequate amount of money with which to keep themselves and to provide themselves in any slight degree with the comforts of life which they should be enjoying in the dimming days of their life on this earth.
Can any man in the House of Commons imagine a man who feels the ravages of his service, a man who although he is sixty-five feels he is seventy-five, having to go out and cut a lawn or shovel snow from in front of the home of a man who is a little bit more fortunate with respect to worldly possessions, or to tend a furnace, trudging through the snow early in the morning and late at night, and with the little pittance he may derive from this source to augment his meagre $40 a month on which he is now trying to eke out an existence? How can any member of this government face a veteran on the street, shivering with the cold this winter- as he will within the next few days, or certainly within the next few weeks-and say: I am a member of the government that is at
The Address-Mr. Ferguson fault with regard to contributing needed money to the burnt-out veteran. I am a member of the government but I never stood on my feet and said: These men cannot possibly live and keep body and soul together in their dying days, their days of need, they cannot do it on $50 a month. Try it.
If you men do not know the prices of food today, if your wives do all the buying, ask them what they pay for food. Can you pay your rent, buy your clothing and pay your necessary doctor's bills, more particularly at that age; can you buy your food on $50 a month? No, you cannot.
I believe that the government is responsible for the present high cost of food. That is all the more reason why, without any further procrastination or juggling of facts, this government should proceed immediately to try to erase the blight which is already on their characters by saying: "We will remember these men who have aged ten years over their actual age, and we will give to them the moneys that are rightly theirs and what they have earned as protectors of this Dominion of Canada." As an hon. member said today, these men without hesitation on August 4, 1914, and in the years following 1914, volunteered, and Canada was proud of her voluntary army. They stepped forward and they offered their lives. They did not hesitate. But in the year 1951, the government of the Dominion of Canada-may I ask the cabinet ministers to return to the cabinet room and consult each other. This is not the place to hold cabinet meetings. If they are not interested in what I have to say on behalf of the burnt-out veterans of the Dominion of Canada, then it is pretty near time they retired behind the curtains, because there are other hon. members, including hon. members of the Liberal party, who are interested in what I have to say. I am glad to say that many men in that party served, and honourably served, as soldiers. I know they know what I say is true. I know the members of the Liberal party in this House of Commons feel in their hearts that every word I am using is true. What I am saying is not simply a political plea. It is a plea for men who cannot plead for themselves. What I am saying on behalf of these men and of other men who served overseas, irrespective of party, is true, and I know that hon. members feel that the member for Simcoe North is telling the truth.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I lay this condition and the necessity for this kind of economy at the very feet of this government, but I pray that they do not start to practise their economy on the burnt-out veterans of the Dominion of Canada. Let them start

The Address-Mr. Ferguson anywhere else. Let them postpone the appointment of the two commissioners to the Vancouver harbour commission. Let them close up the Prime Minister's house for a while, take some of that money and give it to the burnt-out veterans, not next month but immediately. Let there be no delay. When the universal old age pension begins to be paid, let us say with pride that one group that was not held back was the men who offered to sacrifice their lives in the defence of this country. To every man, woman and child who listens I say that is my plea on behalf of the veterans.
I served with these men. Fortunately- and I thank God almost every day for it- I have no incapacitation from my service. I was fortunate in being able to provide a livelihood for myself and family. When I see what this government is trying to do with the burnt-out veterans today I thank God more than ever that I came out whole and hearty, and that I do not have to place myself on the generosity of this government.
There is another matter to which I should like to make reference. The government are trying to get out of a muddle. They are trying to sail down the river on a Sunday afternoon by taxing where taxation is not necessary. They have placed a tax on cigarettes. By doing so they have crippled considerably a very new, outstanding and necessary industry, namely, the tobacco industry. Up in my part of the country the people running these tobacco farms came mostly from Europe. They are men who came here with their families with practically nothing as far as worldly possessions were concerned. By the sweat of their brows they have developed an industry which means millions of dollars to this country. In the government's struggle to get out of the conditions into which they have placed themselves they said: "Oh, tobacco? That is almost the same as liquor. It is horrible that people smoke. Let us put a tax on it; let us increase the tax on every package of cigarettes up to 25 cents". What has been the result? The tobacco companies, which in my opinion are nothing but octopuses and trusts and should be investigated, said: "We cannot bear the tax. Our employees have asked for a rise in salary, and quite properly so. We have to give it to them but we will take it out of the hides of the tobacco producers this year." In my opinion that is exactly what was done. They could fall right back on the poor old producer, the farmer, the hewer of wood, and they said: "We will not pay you what you should receive because the federal government had added an unnecessary tax on tobacco". There is another crippling of

industry which has been brought about by this government's past nonsense and present lack of a sane and sensible course.
That should not take place in a country that has the resources that Canada has. When we leave school in Canada we leave a history book and a geography book about an inch or so thick. From then on practically all of us are educated by United States literature which is sold on the newsstands. The magazines are in glowing colours, and the advertising contained within them is put out by the greatest advertising agencies in the world. The net result is that most people in Canada have champagne appetites and beer incomes when one considers the way they are being educated by the newsstands. From the time they graduated or skipped out of school, either one or the other, they have been subjected to the same kind of education. We are trying to live beyond the incomes we have. Take railway engineers. Our railway engineers drive to the border, unhook a trainload of cars and drive their engines back into Canada. The cars are then taken on by an engineer from the United States who gets a much better salary than do our engineers, but yet they drive identical locomotives. We are separated from our neighbours by only an imaginary boundary, and yet the people of Canada have to pay higher prices for refrigerators. They see them advertised in United States literature, and they desire them, and rightly so. What this country must have is expansion to meet the necessary taxation to permit our people to live on a comparable basis with our neighbours to the south. What do we find? Here are some comparative figures. In Canada, because of the new regulations and taxation imposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), the purchaser of an automobile is required to make a down payment of $1,363. That same car in the United States can be purchased with a down payment of $687. To finance that car in Canada costs $121 a month. In the United States they can finance with $84 a month. That is the champagne of it. But the beer end of it is that we cannot afford to pay $121 on the incomes we receive. The federal tax on a Canadian automobile is $474, while the federal tax on an American automobile is $70.
We have all the wherewithal with which to go forward. All we need is selective immigration from the British isles, sprinkled with Europeans of the right calibre. In my opinion immigration is one thing that should have been attracting the attention of this government for years, ever since 1935. There is no mystery about it.
We need the home market. If we have people here they will buy here. They will

construct buildings for one another and produce food for one another. In that way we would not be so dependent upon our foreign markets. We are down on our hands and knees today praying that Russia will not raise the iron curtain, and that Mr. Stalin will not put his arm around Mr. Churchill and say, "Nonsense; rearmament is over." Because, if he did that, what would happen? The English would be buying wheat from Russia, and other commodities from other places. In those circumstances what would happen in this country with its population of fourteen millions, and now keyed up to supply forty millions or fifty millions? All hon. members know what would happen. We would see one of the greatest slumps Canada has ever experienced. That is what would happen, and those are the facts.
There is ground for criticism when we see the government hesitating to pay the veterans that to which they are entitled, and when we see the government procrastinating about the building of a dam to which the people of Saskatchewan are entitled. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I say nothing could be more appropriate than to visualize and to hear that popular song, "Sailing down the river on a Sunday afternoon," because that is exactly what this government is doing.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, rising to speak in the debate at this stage I wish first of all to say that we, too, support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). We were disappointed when no legislation was foreshadowed in the speech from the throne which would give any hope to our veterans, their dependents and widows across the country at a time when the mounting cost of living makes it necessary to do something more than has been done for them.
So much has been said about it, and so many excellent and eloquent speeches have been made, that I intend merely to leave the matter there and to add that we are wholeheartedly in support of the subamendment and will vote for it, if it reaches a vote. I would hope however that the plea made this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), that the government give an assurance to the house that this will be done now, would make the pressing of the subamendment unnecessary. That, I suggest, would be a most satisfactory outcome of the moving of the subamendment.
What I would say particularly this afternoon is this, that I think sometimes members in all parties are something less than generous to those who have preceded us in the
The Address-Mr. Coldwell house, and perhaps to members of other parties and groups in the house, when they attempt to take to themselves credit for the successful fruition of seed sown and projects suggested by persons other than themselves or their parties.
Last night I listened to the opening remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I did not hear all that he said, because I could not remain longer, but I did hear him give deserved credit to Senator King who piloted the first old age pension bill through this house after, indeed, the Senate had turned that legislation down at the beginning. But may I remind the hon. member that that legislation was promoted, not by the Liberal party, but rather by two hon. gentlemen who were elected by the citizens of Winnipeg to represent them in this house. They were a former member for Winnipeg North Centre, in the person of the late J. S. Woodsworth, and a former member for Winnipeg North, Mr. A. A. Heaps, who I am glad to say is alive and well.
Those of us who know the story, of how that bill was introduced because of the necessity of obtaining the votes of these gentlemen in 1926, know where some credit at least should be given by those who today take the credit for this legislation. I remember very distinctly myself in 1925 being a candidate for parliament and being defeated- yes, and indeed losing my deposit-in the city of Regina. At that time I was urging the bringing into effect of old age pension and unemployment insurance measures. As a matter of fact I had just returned from a visit to Britain, and I remember the extent to which it was said that I had picked up these ideas in Britain, and that Canada, a new country, had no need for this kind of social legislation which had originated in European countries.
And so I say that when we are thinking of this type of legislation we should remember not only those who finally had the opportunity, after long years of public pressure, of putting the legislation on the statute books of this country. Let us also remember the efforts of those who pioneered such legislation in days gone by.
On Monday evening I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who made this statement regarding the South Saskatchewan river scheme, in which some of us have been interested for the last thirty years or so:
The reason that I immediately agreed is because I have been the promoter, so to speak, of this project. Everyone admits that, both east and west.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
Then, at page 937, and turning over to page 938, we find this:
I want to repeat that I was the promoter of the project from the time I came to Ottawa, and I will have something to say a little later, in dealing with one of the other questions, as to why I became the promoter of it at that early date.
I do not want to take any of the credit from the Minister of Agriculture that he may take to himself in this connection. I hope any efforts he has made over the last number of years will be successful, and that we shall have this great project completed within the next few years. I say "the next few years" because I am well aware of the fact that a project of this description cannot be completed within a year.
But I was in the house when this project was under discussion in the thirties, when we had that shocking state of drought across the prairies-and when there was little or no support in the house for any pleas that one made for this particular irrigation project. I remember that on February 11, 1937, for example, we were discussing P.F.R.A.-and may I say at once in passing that I will not take one jot or tittle of the credit away from those who promoted P.F.R.A. The original act, of course, was placed on the statute books in the dying days of the Bennett regime. It was amended in 1937, particularly, by the present Liberal administration in Canada and, from the point of view of our Canadian prairies, I think it has been one of the most beneficial policies ever undertaken. I remember that at that time some of us were interested in the larger scheme. The Minister of Agriculture was telling us about the P.F.R.A. and he informed us also about the changes in the committee that had been established under the old Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and of the discussions that had occurred in that committee. The minister said:
Then, there were projects, such as the building of a dam on the Saskatchewan river, to the northwest of Moose Jaw. This dam would have involved a very heavy expenditure of money, and a further expense would have been involved in connection with pumping the water from the river to the banks. There would have been a further construction of works to carry irrigation to the south and east of the bow of the river.
That matter was discussed before the committee. I assume they got their information from exactly the same engineers as would give it to the department or any other body if it were investigating a matter of that kind. The decision was reached that such undertakings were too costly and perhaps would not bring the results expected from them. It was felt that an expenditure of money to that extent would be more or less uneconomical.
In stating that in the house, the minister did not state it with any disapproval as I remember, or as I can find from the records of the house.


Mr. Gardiner:: The question which is being discussed now is not the South Saskatchewan river project. That was a project that was voted on by the municipalities between the Saskatchewan river and Regina and turned down in 1918. It was a proposal under which water was to be supplied to Regina and Moose Jaw. There was very little discussion with regard to irrigation; it was only in connection with the points along the pipe line.


Major James William Coldwell: This was not in 1918, it was not in 1920, it was not in 1926-this was in 1937. Back in those earlier years the water situation in Regina was most acute and once again this project was brought forcibly to the attention of the city. I remember it quite distinctly because at that time I happened to be a member of the city council.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was referring back to the other matter, when discussing it in 1937.


Major James William Coldwell: Excuse me, I did not interrupt the minister the other night when he was taking to himself all the credit for this.


James Garfield Gardiner: I still take it.


Major James William Coldwell: I remember those days and I made up my mind that I would go into this Saskatchewan river irrigation project. On February 21, 1938, I moved the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should place before parliament at an early date plans, or proposals, for a comprehensive and authoritative survey of water conservation, irrigation possibilities, and other feasible projects for the permanent rehabilitation of the drought stricken area of western Canada and its people.
I well remember that debate and I looked over it again in Hansard during the last day or so. My recollection of that debate is that it received a fairly unsympathetic reception from the government and many hon. members in this house. I remember describing the situation that existed then in the western provinces and being told that I was belittling the province from which I came. I know that Saskatchewan, like Alberta and Manitoba, given the right conditions can produce enormous quantities of new wealth. That has been demonstrated again quite lately.
The history of the prairies warns us that while we may have years like those we have just had, years of bountiful rains, they are always followed by periods of great drought. When I was discussing this resolution in the house I submitted reports that had been made by Palliser and Hind, both of whom had travelled the prairies in the 1850's making surveys of the conditions at that time. From their reports we know that the conditions in the period 1930-38 were not

nearly as bad as the droughts prior to 1858. The records of the trees and of other kinds indicate clearly that from time to time the prairies provinces, particularly that part known as the Palliser triangle, have been subject and will be subject to drought conditions.
Yet in that same Palliser triangle there are two mighty rivers, the North Saskatchewan and the South Saskatchewan, one touching the north and the other cutting across the triangle to the south. In those days of great drought, as the minister and other hon. members from the prairie provinces know, when the land was parched there were millions of cubic feet of water running down those rivers wastefully to lake Winnipeg and on to the sea.
I want to emphasize something the minister said the other evening. He said that the drought conditions that existed from 1930 to 1938 had cost this country $186 million. We are now discussing the building of a dam across the South Saskatchewan river and this, together with at least some of the channels to convey water on to some of the land, will cost approximately $100 million. I say that that is one of the best investments Canada could make. It is one of the best premiums we could pay against the time when we may have to face another drought comparable to that which faced us in the 1930's. It may not come for ten, fifteen or twenty years, but those who have lived on the prairies for fifty or sixty years know that these periods do come.
I remember quite well losing my way one night when driving across the prairies in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Smith). I came to a stone house where I was given shelter for the night by a Mr. Warner who has since passed away. This was during the drought period and in the course of our conversation he told me that shortly after he had established himself on that land, in the early 1880's, a man drove up one night and stayed overnight with him.
There was a pretty dry period at that time and this visitor said that many years before he had camped right in the middle of the nearby lake. Mr. Warner said that that was impossible. The visitor said, "You may think it is impossible, but I did camp right in the middle of the lake and I will show you". It was a bright morning, the water was clear, and they rowed out into the lake and they could see that the bottom was covered with stumps and roots of trees. There was at least some evidence to show that there had been many years before a prolonged drought when
The Address-Mr. Coldwell it seemed some bush had grown in what had been the bottom of a dry lake, but that once more water came with wetter years. I say that the South Saskatchewan river scheme is most necessary, and at the same time may become one of the most profitable investments that this country has ever made. I should like to quote from what I said on a former occasion, as recorded at page 638 of Hansard of February 21, 1938, as follows:
Hence it is not a question of large quantities of water, but of being able to deliver at the right time to the growing crops the comparatively small amount of water often required. For this purpose I believe there is sufficient water in the rivers and streams of western Canada.
I went on to say:
A friend of mine last summer, when the days were hot, stood near Saskatchewan Landing-
That is where the bridge has recently been built.
-and watched the South Saskatchewan, incidentally lower than usual, roll by. He told me that the river was in flood-not a great flood such as we have known in the past, but comparatively in flood-at a much higher level than normal last year, and flowing at about eight miles per hour in a channel one quarter of a mile wide. He estimated that if the water were diverted it would cover many sections of land one foot deep within twenty-four hours.
I do not think you need water one foot deep, but he was computing it on the flow of the water and the level of the land in the plain at that point. I continue:


Mr. Stirling:: What month was that?


Major James William Coldwell: That was in July. I do not know how correct that estimate is, but I do know that vast quantities of water are flowing through the parched lands both from the North and South Saskatchewan rivers to the Arctic seas without being utilized in any way whatever.
I went on to say:
I have endeavoured to discuss these matters with engineers and others who have looked into the problem; I have gone carefully over the contour maps of the dried-out area, and as a layman I would say that wide-scale irrigation seems to present no insuperable difficulties, either physical or financial, on the northern side of the Missouri-Coteau divide.
Then, as the minister said of it the other day, I made this remark:
The valleys of both the Saskatchewan rivers lie between great banks and there are several places where dams could be conveniently located and power generated if desired. If it were necessary to divert some water from the North to the South Saskatchewan river-
That is what the old Pearce plan suggested. -and to supplement the latter, irrigating the intervening country as it flowed, I believe that could be done.
I am not saying that would be something we should or could undertake at the present time. I want to say to the house that I believed at that time and I am still persuaded
1034

The Address-Mr. Coldwell that this project is desirable and feasible. As a matter of fact I went to a great deal of trouble because of the lack of interest in it by the government and because of the lack of support for it in this parliament to see some of the most competent engineers I could find in this country, even one who is a very competent water engineer but whose political activities I have criticized from time to time, and to secure their advice on this particular matter. The advice I received at that time was that the project was feasible and I have never lost my faith in it. I have been told by engineers that dams placed at intervals along the South Saskatchewan river right back to the Red Deer river would irrigate a very much larger area of land than we contemplate irrigating under the proposed South Saskatchewan scheme. However, at that time it received very little support. Even my good friend, Mr. MacNicol, a man who subsequently did so much to assist us in popularizing the project, at that time knew virtually nothing about the South Saskatchewan river scheme. He made a speech discussing water conservation, at that time a problem in the province of Ontario.
What was the official stand of the government at that time? It was given during the course of the debate by the minister who spoke for the government, the Hon. Mr. Crerar. What did he say? As recorded at page 682 of Hansard for February 21, 1938, he mentioned some small schemes and then said:
There were several others, including finally one known as the North Saskatchewan project. That project contemplates the diversion oi the waters of the North Saskatchewan river-*
He discussed the North Saskatchewan; I discussed the South Saskatchewan.
-somewhere west of Prince Albert, bringing them down over the countryside of which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar spoke this afternoon to irrigate the lands lying beyond. They hoped in that scheme to embrace some 1,410,000 acres but the cost would be about $75 an acre. There is no question that engineering science could solve the problem of irrigation.
Then, sarcastically, he added:
As an engineering question, it is not an impossible thing I suppose to take the waters of lake Superior and put them on the prairies of Saskatchewan.
Near the end of his remarks he said:
I think the facts I have given are sufficient to indicate certain conclusions:	First, that there is
today a complete body of information available along the lines suggested in the resolution of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. In the second place, extensive surveys have been made as to the possibility of utilizing the water available for irrigation in Saskatchewan and Alberta. May I say in passing that these reports indicate that of the acreage which could possibly be benefited by irrigation over 90 per cent is in Alberta. So that if we look for relief in undertaking vast and costly schemes of irrigation on the prairies I am afraid we are doomed to disappointment. That, however, does not mean
IMr. Coldwell.]
that in certain localities irrigation projects cannot be undertaken but such projects must be on a modest scale such as those being undertaken today, which are situated almost entirely in Alberta.
That was the attitude, and consequently when I hear a good deal of credit being assumed by members of the government, the government party and even by the opposition, for popularizing this great scheme, I want to say that there are others in the country who have spent a good deal of time and energy and have done a great deal of talking in order to try to get support for this great irrigation project. It is not often- I do not know when I have done so before-[DOT] that I have risen in the house and have made something of a protest against the assumption on the part of hon. members on the government side, or even in the opposition, of all the credit for everything that they subsequently are forced to do or support by public opinion in this country.
That is why I am saying something about the matter this afternoon. There is no question whatsoever that the project is feasible. I think it was unnecessary for the government to appoint a new commission to review all the reports that other committees and commissions have made on this project in the past. May I say that I was very much surprised to note the composition of the commission. This is primarily an irrigation project. Indeed, to the extent that it may become a power project, and I hope it will, that is more or less not the concern of the federal parliament because power is under the control of the provincial governments of Canada. Nevertheless a project that is primarily an irrigation project is being reviewed by a commission consisting of three gentlemen, for whom we have respect, only one of whom is primarily an irrigation expert, Dr. Widtsoe of Salt Lake City. As the minister has said, he is one of the outstanding authorities on irrigation on this continent or indeed throughout the world. In fact, I have seen some writings of his concerning irrigation in various parts of the world. The other two gentlemen were both primarily power men. I was rather surprised that we had a commission composed of one irrigation man and two power men to make an investigation of what is primarily an irrigation project.
This is a big project. As the minister has said, it will be the largest project of its kind on this side of the Canadian-United States border. Before I moved a resolution in the house in 1938, I made it my business to see the great earth dam at Fort Peck, Montana. I also went down to the State of Washington and saw the Coulee project. I say immediately that the Fort Peck dam was not primarily an irrigation project but

only incidentally so. It was a flood control project, but when I saw that great earth dam being built across the Missouri river I thought that, from the nature of the country, it would be a much more difficult project than the South Saskatchewan river project. After all, on the South Saskatchewan river we have steep banks, while at the Fort Peck project they had to build banks all around that great lake which I believe is some 1,500 or 1,600 miles around the perimeter. So, an earth dam of that description could be built, and a great lake could be created. There is sufficient water in the South Saskatchewan I believe to irrigate a larger area of the prairie than the estimate given by the minister and by the engineers, if it is undertaken in steps. I am not asking for anything greater at the moment than the situation seems to demand now.
I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that many of us have worked throughout the years for consideration of this project. We hope and we trust that we have now everyone's support. I was interested in hearing the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) support it the other day. I was interested also in hearing the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), and the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson), eastern members, support the project this afternoon. I am very happy about that, but it has taken a long time. I remember when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was head of the Conservative party-I have the reference to the page in my notes, but I am not going to give it at the moment- he warned the house against some of these big projects. I recall that he said the irrigation that had been undertaken in the province of Alberta up to that time was one of the darkest pages of prairie history. May I just say that one of the first speeches I heard in this house, in favour of these large scale irrigation plans, was made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), who is still with us. He had had experience with large scale irrigation both around Salt Lake City and in southern Alberta, and knew how beneficial such projects could be to the communities. Most of all, I want to say this. Let us go ahead with this project, because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning the day will come again when we shall have a shortage of moisture; when the heavens will not drop the beneficial rain. This has been the history of that great country, which is worth preserving, and worth developing.
There was some criticism of what was being done to relieve the distress in western Canada at one stage, but the late R. B. Bennett said that no group of people in the
94699-66a
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank history of the world ever produced more new wealth per capita in a shorter space of time than the men and women who settled the prairie provinces. That is true. We sometimes hear it said perhaps we bring these prairie problems to the House of Commons frequently. We do, but let us not forget that upon the prosperity of the three prairie provinces and their ability to produce new wealth largely depends the prosperity of this entire country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: should like to take a short time, Mr. Speaker, to join in this debate. I want to assure you that I personally am not worried as to who claims the credit for anything that we may accomplish in Canada. It seems strange to me that, possibly for political reasons-I do not say it is-some members seem to be worried about who gets the credit for this or that. I am in the unfortunate position of having to follow one of the most distinguished speakers in this house, a man for whom I have the greatest admiration, I would have preferred to follow the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) but I did not have that privilege. I have to follow the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for whom, as I said, I have the greatest admiration. I think that sometimes he is right, but unfortunately more often he is wrong.
I have heard about this irrigation scheme. Like the hon. member who preceded me, 1 have had the privilege of motoring through nearly every state in the United States during the past few years. I have seen what they are doing by way of flood control and irrigation. I found that, in most cases, they are endeavouring to combine those two features. I am not going to enter the debate about the Saskatchewan project. I personally do not care, and the people of my riding do not care, whether the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar gets credit for bringing a certain portion of Saskatchewan into production or whether the credit goes where it should, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), so long as that portion is brought into production.
You have irrigation problems, but one of my Quebec colleagues has introduced a resolution concerning river bank erosion. I remind the hon. member for Broadview that there is such a thing as river bank erosion. To some of us in western Canada, . and those along the St. Lawrence, it is just as important as irrigation on the prairies. In the old days it was said that river bank erosion was a local matter. In the old days, that may have been true. I am glad to see that my hon. friend and

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank genial colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), who knows how to say no better than any man in this house, is present. What might have been true of river bank erosion in the past is not true today. Those of us who come from the province of British Columbia, which as you know is a great timber country, would remind hon. members that we produce approximately 55 per cent of the soft timber produced in Canada. Naturally, in logging off that country as we have done in the past, we have changed the entire water course of the mighty Fraser river. In the old days it was said that it was a local matter, one either for the municipalities or for the province. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to submit to the Minister of Public Works that that principle no longer holds true; and I believe the same thing may be said with regard to the St. Lawrence. We as local taxpayers-and I know of no better word to use-are not capable of protecting our river banks from erosion. This is something which affects not only the lives and the homes of farmers and industry, but also affects navigation both on the St. Lawrence and on the Fraser rivers. I submit that it is of vital importance to the inhabitants along both these rivers-in exactly the same manner as it is important to the people in Saskatchewan that they have irrigation-that the larger course be pursued, and that the matter of river bank erosion be recognized as a federal matter and not be one confined to local taxation purposes.
I want to admit that in the past the federal government have been fair within my own riding, as I know they have in other ridings, to a certain extent. But I know that it is not realized, I am sorry to say, by my colleagues from my own province, how important it is to the province of British Columbia-not only to Fraser Valley but to the city of Vancouver -that the main navigable river on the Pacific coast is maintained as such; and that cannot be done unless some attention is paid to the matter not merely by the Department of Public Works but by what I have been given to understand is the more important body, namely the Department of Finance. Apparently certain boys over in that ivory tower do not realize or so far have not appreciated how important this matter can be.
Mr. Speaker, although I have until 6.15 in which to speak, I do not intend to take that long. As you will notice, I do not speak from notes; and I have never yet read a speech. I want to refer for just a moment to my friend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. COMMONS
Low)-I believe that is the riding he represents-in connection with his remarks and his apology for being opposed to the co-operative movement.


Mr. Fair:: It was no apology.


Mr. Shaw:: No apology at all.


Robert Fair: Do not say that when he is not in the house. You know it is not right.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad to have some assistance from some of my friends from that district. If the hon. member for Peace River was not apologizing for his attack upon British Columbia Tree Fruits, I do not know what he was doing.


Frederick Davis Shaw: He did not attack the British Columbia Tree Fruits, and you know it.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I say that British Columbia Tree Fruits, who happen to be the most representative body of agricultural distributors on the American continent outside of California, think it was an attack on them and have so stated publicly.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That does not make it an attack; you know that too.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member made this statement and he made it in my own riding. It is convenient to make statements at the time of an election when you hope to get a few votes. I hope the same statements are made in my riding again. Incidentally I want to say to my friends in that great province that I endeavoured, with little support from them, to get the pipe lines through a Canadian route, although I must admit support from them until the big stick apparently said: Thou shalt not speak; we must not have the pipe line through a Canadian route. That is a great province, and it is one of the wealthiest. If it associates itself with the province of British Columbia, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), we will be the two greatest provinces in the Dominion of Canada. But apparently you must depend on the guidance of those in British Columbia to achieve that end.
In my own riding at the time of an election it was stated that small fruits-strawberries and raspberries-were rotting in Yarrow, British Columbia. This statement was made publicly by the leader of the Social Credit party. But he did not recognize the fact that these strawberries and raspberries were in SOa, were already not only purchased but paid for and were not rotting. But no retraction was made. In apologizing for the statement and for the excessive rate charged for the frozen wheat from Red Deer, I should like the hon. member to explain away that fact.


Frederick Davis Shaw: He explained it so that anyone could understand it if he wanted to.


George Alexander Cruickshank: He might have explained it so that anyone could understand it, provided he did not want the true facts. But I am not referring to that.
I now want to refer for a moment to the hon. member for Broadview. I have been on the veterans affairs committee since I came back here in 1940, and I want to admit frankly that I have not made a particularly good job of it. I have not done all that I should nor accomplished all that I should on behalf of the veteran. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this to the veterans and the members of every Canadian Legion; and may I say that I have a letter from nearly 2very branch in the Dominion of Canada. The opposition at no time forced me to take the stand I took on behalf of my fellow veterans; and that is a matter of record in Hansard and in the veterans affairs committee, and is something of which I am exceedingly proud. I rather resent being told that I and my friend the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) were dictated to in any way, shape or form by anybody in the stand that we took.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I regret the fact that the government have not as yet seen fit to do what I think they should have done, particularly in behalf of recipients of the war veterans allowance. But at least we have obtained the promise that at the next session of the house a committee will be set up to review those cases which must of necessity be interlocked with those under the new Old Age Security Act which has been brought into force at this session. I resent any injection by a gallant member with a distinguished war record and, I know, a generous nature-I refer to the hon. member for Broadview-of a remark to the effect that we were coerced or forced into the action we have taken. Rather, I would prefer to believe that the action of the government to date was taken largely on the advice of men of more mature judgment than some of those who criticize the most.
I believe that the government are making a mistake in the present session in not bringing the war veterans allowance up to the proper rate at which I believe it should be. I believe that this amount could be arrived at in twenty-four hours by a meeting of the previous committee, under the same chairman, and with the same members, if necessary. I believe we could arrive at a figure that we think should be allowed these recipients of war veterans allowance. I am pleased that the government has announced, through the minister, that legislation will be brought down this session raising the basic
The Address-Mr. Cruickshank rate of pension of disability pensioners. I want to make myself perfectly clear. I do not believe that the civil servants will be overpaid when they get the new increases that have been mentioned. I want to make that perfectly clear because, after all, there may be a few civil servants in my own riding. But if the government admits that in order to cope with the present cost of living the civil servants need the increase as announced, proclaimed, advertised, and I will not say boasted of, by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) two days ago, then these poor war veterans are entitled to an increase not next year, but this session, and it should be made retroactive immediately.
I want to say one more thing, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the province of British Columbia-and I am speaking only for my own riding because I was reprimanded once before for speaking for other ridings. But I have the definite authority to speak on behalf of my own riding. Not only can I speak for my own association, which embraces every local from one end of the riding to the other, but in this particular instance I have the confidence of the people of all parties in my riding. If we can find a surplus, which I am proud to say we have found, of half a billion dollars, we can find the money necessary not next year but this year to see that no veteran or dependent goes short, no matter how bountiful the present pension may be.
I should like to touch on one other thing, Mr. Speaker. I will have to revert to irrigation on the coast, but I am particularly interested in my own riding and I frankly admit it. I should like to refer to the matter of river bank erosion. It has been often said by an hon. member from my own province that we in British Columbia will, as we see fit, support the St. Lawrence waterway because we believe it to be for the benefit of Canada as a whole. Along with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), we are prepared to say that there should be no discussion about the irrigation of Saskatchewan. We are prepared to go along with the St. Lawrence waterways, remembering, as was pointed out by both the premier of Ontario, the leader of the opposition of the province, and by other leading statemen, that the St. Lawrence waterway development is not merely a ship canal but a power development. Let there be no mistake about it. The main reason the St. Lawrence waterway development is to be undertaken is not to build a ship canal but to build power lines. Mr. Saunders has openly said so; Mr. Frost has openly said so; Mr. Thomson has openly said so. Every other leader in that province has said so and we in British Columbia- and I speak only for the Fraser Valley-are

The Address-Mr. Cruickshank willing to go along with that because the development of power within the two central provinces will ultimately build up the province of British Columbia. But I want to point out that we in British Columbia, the Pacific gateway to your great commercial and manufacturing provinces, built up our hydroelectric system on a free enterprise basis without one dollar's worth of assistance from any government, either federal or provincial. We were not successful at it at first, but eventually we put a young Canadian in charge. The only black mark he has against his name in the great advancements he has made in our hydroelectric development in British Columbia, the leading and the greatest province in Canada, is that he is a Rhodes scholar, but he is living that down and building our hydroelectric without assistance from any government or any source other than free enterprise. When my hon. friends over there in the comer talk to me about socialism I say let them look to my own province, the province that has increased more in population and more in industrial strength per capita than any other province in Canada in the last ten years without one dollar of assistance from any government at all. Let them try that.
One thing more, Mr. Speaker; I want to be very brief in this because I may be accused of harking back to an old subject. Let me say this in deference to a certain friend of mine in whom I have the greatest confidence and whose ability I recognize. I did not have the opportunity of hearing his talk today because I had to go to the radio station to make a speech. I will not call it a speech because I know there will be some dispute about it from my friend and colleague the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair). I had to go and say something at the radio station. I would have much preferred to stay and listen to the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker), but preferably to listen to the football game. I am not going to say anything about civil defence at this time other than to say I do not think any real attempt has been made to deal with civil defence. I have listened to great men such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of the United States. Frankly, what I might say about national defence is of no more significance than what might be said by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Drew); we are both amateurs. But when these three great gentlemen speak, what they say is of importance. I believe the time has come when we in Canada must realize we are going through most critical times. I believe, sir, that one
way in which we can say to the people of Canada, to the veterans of Canada and through the veterans of Canada to their sons, that we are not hesitating, that we are not asking them to wait until next year, is to bring down suitable legislation enabling those receiving war veterans allowance to receive their just dues. Do not let us wait until next session; let us bring it down now.
As I see it, I can do nothing to help them that would be of any material benefit. Should I vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), it would not help. I think that is one of the fallacies of our system. We talk about reforming the rules and regulations of the house, and we bring in those ten-minute and fifteen-minute periods, which I am sorry to say was instigated by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) for whom I have the greatest admiration. One thing we could do to reform the rules of this house is to see that a matter as important as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia is voted on on its merits, and not as a motion of confidence in the government. 1 have confidence in the government, and-as the minister of external affairs knows I have in the past-I will refrain from voting.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was
adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we intend to proceed with the two resolutions in the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), one concerning amendments to the National Defence Act, and the other to approve an agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces. Then we will take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) concerning amendments to the Government Annuities Act, followed by the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley) concerning public printing and stationery. Then if we have time left we will take up the bill which received first reading today, concerning the amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act. Then we would resume debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) for second reading of Bill No. 10, to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom.
At 6.15 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.

Thursday, November 15, 1951